November 16, 2004 12:19 PM PST
MPAA touts lawsuits, new P2P-fighting software
- Related Stories
-
Hollywood lawsuits to strike Net pirates
November 4, 2004 -
Hollywood whistles a high-tech 'toon
October 29, 2004 -
Stolen a film? MPAA wants to know
July 8, 2004
The organization also said it will release free software to help parents and other computer owners identify all the music, movie and peer-to-peer software files on their machines.
The trade group, which is following in the path of a similar legal strategy laid down by the Recording Industry Association of America, declined to say how many people it is suing or what file-swapping networks it's focusing on. However, an MPAA representative said suits will be brought across the United States and that this will be just the first of successive rounds of legal action against individuals.
"The motion-picture industry must pursue legal proceedings against people who are stealing our movies on the Internet," MPAA Chief Executive Officer Dan Glickman said in a statement. "The future of our industry, and of the hundreds of thousands of jobs it supports, must be protected from this kind of outright theft using all available means."
After years of letting the RIAA take the lead in legal action, the MPAA has stepped up its campaign against peer-to-peer networks on several fronts, hoping in large part to frighten would-be file-swappers into dropping the practice.
The lawsuits are being accompanied by a series of full-page newspaper advertisements, running in college publications and in mainstream titles including The Wall Street Journal.
One of these ads shows a finger clicking a mouse, alongside a headline emblazoned in red: "Is this you?" That's followed by a long list of user names and IP addresses typical of those found on file-sharing networks such as Kazaa, eDonkey, DirectConnect, Grokster and Lime Wire, which are named specifically. "If you think you can get away with illegally trafficking in movies, think again," the ad warns.
Most Popular
Latest tech news headlines
-
Yahoo reportedly near decision on new CEO
January 8, 2009 10:15 PM PST
-
Facebook tells Meebo to rework Chat integration
January 8, 2009 9:09 PM PST
-
News Corp.'s MySpace, 'WSJ' partner on Davos contest
January 8, 2009 9:00 PM PST
- See all headlines
RSS Feeds
Add headlines from CNET News to your homepage or feedreader.
More feeds available in our RSS feed index.
- Markets
Related quotes
- Dow Jones Industrials (-0.31%) -27.24 8,742.46
- S&P 500 (0.34%) 3.08 909.73
- NASDAQ (1.12%) 17.95 1,617.01
- CNET TECH (0.75%) 8.48 1,141.83
Now, Im not condoning file-sharing in copyrighted works or saying that it has no effect on the bottom line, but it is not as drastic as these 2 groups make it out to be.
Look at the Video Game industry. It is flourishing, yet you can go out right now and download a working copy of halo2, GTA:san andreas, Doom3, etc. Halo2 had a bigger opening day sales than the incredibles.
Why, might you ask? Because, its about the content. Frankly, I as a consumer am not going to pay $7-10 to go see a movie anymore. I will wait until I can rent it for a couple bucks. And Im going to plug the netflix service here, which is awsome. www.netflix.com.
If filesharing is diminishing box office sales, why are online rentals figures going up? People that rent movies form online stores such as netflix are obviously connected and can download the movie for free if they choose too. Its because most people dont mind paying for a movie, but they are not going to pay the outrageous prices asked at the box office to see the same old recycled crap.
The music industry is the same way. I have bought 2 cd's this year, and both of them I bought because I listened to the mp3 for free first. I will not buy a CD based on the reviews because 9 times out of 10 that cd will be 1 or 2 good songs and then 10 tracks of crap.
Think about this, what was the last 'new release' that you bought and listened to the whole thing more than once? Its not often. So, is 1 or 2 tracks worth $14-22? Why do you think online music stores are doing so good? You can pay $1 a track and download what you want. The only thing that I think would be better is if you could download an entire track at full quality, listen to it, and then its gone until you buy it.
The MPAA and RIAA just dont understand that consumers dont care if stuff is protecting them from breaking copyright law, they care about content, value, quality, and above all ease of use.
This is my one pet peave about online music stores, the content is not universal. Its "well this track will work on this software, with these players". Dont tell me that. Tell me Im downloading a U2 song that I can play in my car cd player, my home stereo, my mp3 player, and my computer. Isnt that what you could do before with a plain old cd?
If the MPAA isnt careful, they are going to **** off consumers like the RIAA has and drive them from the movie theatres.
Now, Im not condoning file-sharing in copyrighted works or saying that it has no effect on the bottom line, but it is not as drastic as these 2 groups make it out to be.
Look at the Video Game industry. It is flourishing, yet you can go out right now and download a working copy of halo2, GTA:san andreas, Doom3, etc. Halo2 had a bigger opening day sales than the incredibles.
Why, might you ask? Because, its about the content. Frankly, I as a consumer am not going to pay $7-10 to go see a movie anymore. I will wait until I can rent it for a couple bucks. And Im going to plug the netflix service here, which is awsome. www.netflix.com.
If filesharing is diminishing box office sales, why are online rentals figures going up? People that rent movies form online stores such as netflix are obviously connected and can download the movie for free if they choose too. Its because most people dont mind paying for a movie, but they are not going to pay the outrageous prices asked at the box office to see the same old recycled crap.
The music industry is the same way. I have bought 2 cd's this year, and both of them I bought because I listened to the mp3 for free first. I will not buy a CD based on the reviews because 9 times out of 10 that cd will be 1 or 2 good songs and then 10 tracks of crap.
Think about this, what was the last 'new release' that you bought and listened to the whole thing more than once? Its not often. So, is 1 or 2 tracks worth $14-22? Why do you think online music stores are doing so good? You can pay $1 a track and download what you want. The only thing that I think would be better is if you could download an entire track at full quality, listen to it, and then its gone until you buy it.
The MPAA and RIAA just dont understand that consumers dont care if stuff is protecting them from breaking copyright law, they care about content, value, quality, and above all ease of use.
This is my one pet peave about online music stores, the content is not universal. Its "well this track will work on this software, with these players". Dont tell me that. Tell me Im downloading a U2 song that I can play in my car cd player, my home stereo, my mp3 player, and my computer. Isnt that what you could do before with a plain old cd?
If the MPAA isnt careful, they are going to **** off consumers like the RIAA has and drive them from the movie theatres.
My current personal thought about the situation is quite simple, maybe too simple.
The overall copyright concept is in great danger and MUST be revised. The Internet and its related technologies have made possible and very easy to record, copy and redistribute at no cost any work, be it from an artist or a pupil, that can be seen or heard.
Given that, how can you imagine that the older copyright concept (which existed before the Internet and its technologies) can survive? By trying to sue people who CAN do it? I would suggest rethinking the concept itself, because it is not viable nowadays.
Sincerely
Patrick Michel
My current personal thought about the situation is quite simple, maybe too simple.
The overall copyright concept is in great danger and MUST be revised. The Internet and its related technologies have made possible and very easy to record, copy and redistribute at no cost any work, be it from an artist or a pupil, that can be seen or heard.
Given that, how can you imagine that the older copyright concept (which existed before the Internet and its technologies) can survive? By trying to sue people who CAN do it? I would suggest rethinking the concept itself, because it is not viable nowadays.
Sincerely
Patrick Michel