April 29, 2005

• Yes this is real news, although the bill is more addressing piracy- filming a movie in the theatre or stealing music master tapes before release- than normal file sharing. The most interesting part is where they allow "clean" movie distributors to chop up movies as they see fit and sell them...
• The Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) said 90% of pirated films were "stolen" by people in cinemas with camcorders taping films to put online or on DVDs. Back in the early days of TV the corporations involved would record a show by setting a film camera in front of a TV screen. (I wish they'd have saved more "Burns & Allen" episodes, dammit.) So with all those rental DVDs and digital camcorders out there why bother buying a theater ticket? But no, I'm not suggesting anybody do it; I'm just sayin', is all.
• Big Davey: Back in the early days of TV the corporations involved would record a show by setting a film camera in front of a TV screen. (I wish they'd have saved more "Burns & Allen" episodes, dammit.) I was only aware of John Cura and his tele-snaps. US broadcasters did the same thing? The Family Entertainment and Copyright Act also makes it easier for parents to prevent children seeing and hearing sex, violence and bad language on DVDs. You know what else makes it easier? If these parents would try not buying their children copies of Sex, 'Splosions and Headguts IV by checking the DVD box beforehand. There's a reason the things have "PG-13" and such printed on them.
• The "clean movies" thing is actually an interesting grey area. It seems wrong to me, because they're mutliating someone's copyrighted work and selling it. Kind of like buying "Moby Dick by Herman melville" only to find that page 200 -300 are missing from this edition. But it's still passed off as melville's work. I think it would be legal for the people who are so concerned about this stuff to post a website saying 'when you watch movie X, fast forward the part from 45 minutes to 48 minutes, 30 seconds." that would achieve the same result for the people who are petrified of seeing violence. If people want to choose to view a copyrighted work incompletely, I dont think the law can stop them.
• The bill targets file-sharers who put copies of new songs and films online before their commercial release. Then don't do that. Unless you're an idiot or criminal mastermind, this will affect very few people.
• I'm not keen on the clean movies people, but I can't get really excited about the rights of the creators that are being trampled by clean movies when I enjoy sampled hip-hop music. On the other hand, legislation that makes clean movies freely legal (and profitable for its industry) while requiring expensive payments from hip-hop artists for samples or allowing creators to outright ban use of their music in samples is wrong-headed.
• >MPAA president Dan Glickman said: "There is evidence that criminal gangs use this kind of theft to support and expand their criminal enterprises." It's a rare moment for me when I can't think of anything to say that seems sarcastic enough...
• Wait a minute...they actually want to punish theft? Now they've gone too far...
• I certainly think film bootleggers are acting in an illegal fashion, but the punishment seems excessive. The, er, "exuberant" lads at The Register had this reaction:

  Since involuntary manslaughter brings, on average, anywhere from 0 to 36 months' incarceration, one might well question the morality of going harder on those who trade files than on those who negligently cut short the lives of fellow citizens.

• moneyjane that's easier said then done. Overenthusiastic fans who are thinking they can't be caught will keep doing this. They could download the movies/music from filesharers outside of the US where laws are way more relaxed (for example the Netherlands, where I'm from) and the die hard fans won't be able to wait. On top of that- this may be an indication of things to come. At least we know how the idiot president thinks about the topic now (although that's not a big surprise).
• Also, a book I recommend for everyone to read on the topic of copyright laws and filesharing: "Free Culture", by Lawrence Lessig. Although no doubt many people here will have read it already.
• Overenthusiastic fans who are thinking they can't be caught will keep doing this. Then they're idiots. You steal and distribute something before its commercial release they should give you five years for goddamn stupid. After commercial release? Up for grabs. Adapt or die.
• It's like saying; Overenthusiastic car thieves who are thinking they can't be caught will keep doing this. Why the hell should I care? Being a dumbass doesn't get you a walk.
• /yawn they will never stop us.
• I wait with bated to see how they'll catch overenthusiastic fans who share pre-release music in locked LJ entries. Will they send spies into fandoms? Will the fans fight back with fandom-wide witchhunts? What awesome possibilities!
• ... bated breath. Being an overenthusiastic fan who's shared much pre-release music has made me such a dumbass.
• Heh! See what I mean! I'm a get me a switch an whup the devil out that kenshin! Pre-release music is devil music! Make ya all crazy in the head and you forget yer letters! *spits tobacco, squints*
• ROTFLMFAO

• The bill targets file-sharers who put copies of new songs and films online before their commercial release.

  i think the point of this is that if a movie blows, the studios fear that word will get out even before its opening weekend. ang lee's hulk is a good example of this.
• i think the point of this is that if a movie blows, the studios fear that word will get out even before its opening weekend. ang lee's hulk is a good example of this. Obvious sarcastic remark: Because making movies that don't blow would be too hard. This does not affect me because I am not well-connected enough to get prerelease anything.
• Wait a minute...they actually want to punish theft? Now they've gone too far... I think it's the wrong punishment. 3 years in prison? Goddamn neocon's attitudes to criminal punishment . . . ugh . . . anyway it makes much more sense that the sentence be financial. 's selling pirated content? Fine, take all their money & probation for 10 years or whatever. In case it's not perfectly clear that extremely long jail sentences don't deter crime . . um . . they don't. Fear-based decision making masked as "governance" doesn't work either, but i digress again. Maybe i just need a good stupping.
• All crimes (I think) carry a prescribed penalty with a maximum fine and a maximum jail term. It sounds like the BBC article chose to just mention the maximum jail term for full editorial effect. In reality, anyone charged with this particular infraction will likely see something closer to the hefty fine and probation that petebest suggested.
• good point, I suppose the jail time could be a perfunctory part of the law. Just don't get busted for it in Texas.
• I just don't get the pirated movie thing. I tried downloading a couple of different films via torrent and limewire and the viewing experience SUCKED!!! Low resolution and poor sound that went out of sync very shortly after the start of the film. I say just join netflix. Now music, that's another thing... As Chyrendamus said, they will never stop us.