The MPAA needs to go

Read full article

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.

I'm with you on that Larry.

Somehow copying a CD with the "Intent to sell the original" without RIAA licensing opens up a can of worms (almost defines "Piracy" et al).

Also see the following:
Amazon.com: "Upon your payment of our fees for Digital Content, we grant you a non-exclusive, non-transferable right to use the Digital Content for your personal, non-commercial, entertainment use"
iTunes: "You agree not to modify, rent, lease, loan, sell, distribute, or create derivative works based on the Service, in any manner"

Foregoing those, on my past involvements in copyright issues it is also assumed the original owner has also deleted the files sold as well and not storing them elsewhere. Legit sites like any of these pay for those rights to sell music as does the local record shop (re-sale on used CD's). Even XM Radio got into trouble for playing songs without paying into the RIAA and/or ASCAP, hence their fee increase last year for $2/mo. for all subscribers. Over the airways broadcasters have always had that license, but XM decided they didn't and payed the price.

I don't see an issue with ripping and doing whatever you want with your own CD to load into your own personal player, but if you are copying and selling the original or any tracks off it then I suspect you are working outside of what the RIAA finds as legal. Same goes for some DJ's I know who need to "Pay-to-Play."

Hell, even Taylor Swift and Metallica (or most likely their record label) are now suing small bars that play their music without compensation. No voice tracks either (I don't know, but I guess the music only track is also theirs?), but from the suit "There is no karaoke allowed without $$$ to the labels or the RIAA/ASCAP/Owner licensee." Play for more than the buyer and you can be found guilty. Host and download other than to yourself runs the same risk - and it is very pricey as the woman in Europe recently found out.

For Robert:
Want to be safe? Call the RIAA and tell them what you are doing and ask them "Is it legal?" You can ague to your heart's content on legal semantics (or your interpretation of "What is legal?" which trump's their interpretation), but the getting it from their legal horses mouth is much better than hosting a site for downloads to anyone other than yourself and any subsequent outcome doing so. Better safe than sorry, no?

Fwiw, I agree to "Pay the maker" and get the RIAA/ASCAP out of the picture entirely as they are relics of a bygone era that still exist today (hence the re-appearance of vinyl LP's) - only with teams of $$ lawyers now. Some stuff I now buy comes directly from the singer if they are independent and they get the full $10 of the CD and not $1. Unfortunately, all (so far) are down-loadable and compressed in often MP3 format - and some pretty bad too! I haven't seen an uncompressed download yet, but it would be interesting. Probably due to bandwidth of receiving the files. Maybe the "New artist" will also have to self-promote more and not let a label do it for them?

No doubt CD sales are dwindling, but the RIAA isn't going away soon and they own the artist unless they bail from the contract. The stock of CD's at my local bookstore is abysmal and has shrunk dramatically to one rack from eight over the past year. Soon all that will be left is MP3 downloads of varying quality.

Oh, I was referring "audiophile-quality" of the in-ear phones. CD rips are a whole different - and very subjective - matter. Personally, I doubt if one can tell a lossy 320 Kbps 48Hz MP3 rip from a loss-less FLAC one. However, I've been meaning to try that someday…maybe today…since I'm out with a cold.

Mack

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..

Verizon Communications is now sending MPAA notices to accused pirates.

Last week Verizon Communications began forwarding copyright notices to music pirates, originally generated by the Recording Industry Association of America. As with noticies previously sent through AT&T and Cox Communications, they inform the accused that the activity is illegal, and that the files must be deleted immediately.

Now Verizon is forwarding similar notices from the Motion Picture Association of America and NBC Universal. According to CNET, the film studios and copyright owners were not revealed, and Verizon refused to issue a statement regarding the notices. However, NBC Universal had no problem making its involvement known.

“We are happy to be working with the ISP community to raise awareness about inappropriate online activity,” the company said. “The notice from NBCU that accompanies the ISP's letter includes a link through which consumers can learn about legitimate content online, and provides a number to call if consumers feel they have been contacted in error. We note, however, that virtually no users have contested the accuracy of the notices.”

CNET theorizes that broadband companies are now jumping on the anti-piracy bandwagon in order to get in good graces with the television and movie industry. This love affair may ultimately give ISPs access to premium TV shows and feature films. Of course, broadband providers also want to stop piracy because the hefty downloads are clogging the pipes.

Follow me on twitter to get inside scoops and updates even faster!

Witch School where one could make your way through their ranks to become Queen of all Wiccans. All a future Wiccan wannabe needed to do was send them money and in return they would send you papers to fill your bookshelves at home with, cool badges to win friends and influence people with and a certificate with tasteful clip-art pictures (drawn by L. Ron Hubbard himself) in case anyone tries to dispute your claim of being Queen of all Wiccans. All rituals, including self-initiations, take place online in chat rooms, probably by those same guys who hit on your 8-year-old sister through Yahoo Messenger.

The Native Americans had been practicing Wicca for millennia and it had been passed down to L. Ron Hubbard by his grandma (a Native American gypsy wench, who occasionally hit the crack-peace-pipe) but was an overly complicated system.

British Traditional

This was started one fateful evening when the first episode of Buffy the Vampire Slayer aired and was seen by some bored upper-class teenagers. This tradition is also known as “The Cult of Rupert Giles”. An important part or these rituals involves forming a circle to drink Darjeeling and eat cucumber sandwiches.

Alexandrian Tradition

Only people with the name Alex, Alexandra, Aleq or Alexander may join these covens. Alexandrias, oddly, are banned from the tradition, and in fact are in danger of being skinned alive and eaten if they come within 100 yards of an Alexandrian coven.

Faery/Fairy Tradition

This a tradition where covens are made up of 8-year-old girls and gay males of varying ages. The international headquarters is located in San Francisco in the Castro district.

Christian Wicca (pronounced :?)

Little is known of this ancient religion other than it is over 10,000 years old and is a Christian based neopagan, black clothes and eyeliner based religion. Devised by a committee of Christians and Wicca who were attempting to put an end to the various lynching, duckings and death by spell casting that had plagued New Hampshire in the late 20th century. Followers of this religion worship the popular childrens book character named Harry Potter, and take the books of the author J.K Rowling as their de facto Bible, although the teachings of a recent publication The Tales of Beedle The Bard have been hotly disputed. The leader or Wishop of the Christian Wicca is shrouded in secrecy but is known to be one of the actors in the Harry Potter Film series, the ceremonial robes which are only worn in the privacy of his or her home, consist of a Sorting hat and a bed sheet that has been dyed black and has a hole cut in it for the head.

To become a Christo-Wicca, all you need to do is join the Church of Wicca and then not practice Witchcraft, don't do any rituals, don't do any spells or any divination/fortune telling and don't wear a pentagram. Also, be sure to worship Wiccan-Jesus, read the Wiccan Bible and take part in the cannibalistic rite of Wiccan Communion every Sunday. Purity Rings are the only permitted jewelry in this faith. They do however permit their clergy to listen to christian metal bands. This group has already begun it's own mutation which caused the formation of sub(human)group know as Christian Baptist Wicca. The disadvantage of being a Christian Wicca of course, is that you will be shunned by both Christian churches who disagree with your interpretation of their Bible (which they deem a mockery), and Wiccans from other traditions, who find you completely bizarre.

Dianic Tradition

Ever since the tragic passing of Princess Goddess Diana, this tradition has come to total fruition. Believers of this tradition worship before an Altar of Diana, normally depicted in her striking 80's-big-hair form. They also operate an underground network of operatives as they currently believe that either the Gardenarians or Alexandrians might have been behind the plot to kill their deity… either them or it was just those annoying, smelly, jealous French froggies! They are also known to have called a Jihad on the house of Windsor, thereby claiming their title as Wicca's most extremist and fundamentalist tradition!

Unlike other branches of Wicca, Dianic Wicca believes in a devil, whom they call “Prince Charles”. Dianic Wiccans like to sing hymns, mostly that annoying song by Elton John which can also be used in the worship of Marylyn Monroe.

Celtic Wicca

This is the most beautiful and the most authentic of all the Wiccan traditions. It's followers must adhere to very strict rules if they wish to be involved but the payoff is huge. They start by wearing massive amounts of green, and then attempt to have their whole home, it's furnishing and anything about it made green also. They must then follow a strict diet of green potatoes and Guinness (dyed green) and watch at least three episodes of Father Ted a day. After a year and a day, they must move to ireland (if not already living there). The final steps to complete indoctrination are to don a gay, green suit, carry a Shillelagh and reach a permanent state of drunkenness. Once achieved, they are welcomed by the elders of the coven by being awarded with a rainbow and a Pot-O-Gold ™.

Seax-Wicca

Legend has it that this tradition was made up by an industrious but drunken Englishman who decided to ride the Wiccan gravy train all the way to the good ol' U S of A. Those yanks will buy anything if you give it a cool name and market it as mysterious and shit. However, he thought that his grand plan had been thwarted when he woke up the next day (hugely hungover) to realise a rather bad typo in the name he had chosen. He had decided to call it Sex Wicca, as Uncle Bucky (what he called himself) knew that Wicca was a great way to get nubile young girls nekkid. Instead he spelled it Seax-Wicca and had to come up with some other random gibberish to avoid looking the fool (…well, more so than he already was).

Hanger On Tradition
Similar to Christian Wicca, this is made up of ex-Wiccans turned Christian in England who are actually still Wiccans. Even though they converted to Christianity, they hang out with Wiccans, have services where Wicca and Christianity are combined, and talk about Wicca stuff. Its members are like that kid that graduates High School but still keeps showing up just to hang out until eventually the school cop bans him from the property.

Klingon Wicca

Urm… the people of this tradition are actually the only legitimate form of Wicca. And not the kind of people who you want to anger because they will call a jihad on your ass, faster than a Muslim who sees a picture of Hoghammed!

Wiccan Offspring

In some cases, and probably due to all the mass-drug-induced-orgies, Wiccans will reproduce. If there was ever an argument for abortion to be more easily accessible, this would be it. The sad fact is that sometimes equally desperate, obese Wiccan's of opposite sexes will manage to bump uglies. Although little is known of their spawning, it would appear that the females carry the offspring for around 9 months. This is very difficult to tell though, due to the previously mentioned obesity. Some still argue that it is the male who carries the spawn or that they in fact lay eggs in caves. However, females often see fit to bare their massive and gelatinous midrift during these months in order to display their pregnant-ness but due to the high risk of it inducing vomiting fits from the general public a ban will soon be placed on this practise.

External links

A Wiccan ritual as demonstrated by a REAL Wiccan

A book written by a Real Witch that will make you laugh your ass off *read some of it here

Spokeswoman says its still a crime, compares it to shoplifting. Many of us are well aware of illegal video streaming sites that allow you to watch new movie releases on-demand. Obviously it’s illegal to upload and make content available, but what’s sort of murky is whether or not it’s illegal to simply watch it.

Original post:
MPAA: Illegal Movie Streaming is Still Theft

The Pirate Bay hatches new streaming video site (sort of)
Streaming Video Sites Should Be Blocked, Says Movie Producer
Pirate Bay Launches “Video Bay” Video Streaming Site
Bram Cohen To Deliver BitTorrent Live Streaming

Tags: college, elizabeth kaltman, internet, mart-or-best, mickie-piatt, result, steve-englund, used-as-much, video, whether-or-not

Friday, November 27th, 2009 P2P News
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.

As the war on Internet piracy rages on, a Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) official recently said that anyone in the United States who views new film releases online technically could be committing theft.

“Nobody who isn’t a criminal would walk into Blockbuster or Wal-Mart or Best Buy, wherever they’re selling or renting DVDs, take it off the shelf, put it under their arm and not pay for it,” MPAA spokesperson Elizabeth Kaltman told the Chicago Sun-Times.

This analogy has failed both the MPAA and Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) in the past, as it doesn’t cause guilt among very many PC users. Not too many people believe pirating digital music tracks is quite the same as pillaging the local Best Buy.

Furthermore, copyright lawyer Steve Englund noted people who post copyrighted content are technically committing a crime, but it’s a far stretch to say each person watching the content also is violating the law.

The MPAA spokesperson also pointed out at least 90 percent of unauthorized video viewing online is of movies recorded directly in movie theaters. Although it has become easier to steal and transfer pre-release versions of movies, there is better enforcement and anti-piracy measures that make it easier to identify where the leak originated from.

Earlier in November, the MPAA urged the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to have a three-strikes piracy law similar to some European nations, which could lead to repeat copyright infringers being disconnected from the Internet.

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.

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.

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 :D?

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.”

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

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

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,

Tom Field writes:

What have been the biggest privacy issues of 2009, and what emerging trends should you watch heading into 2010?

We posed these questions to J. Trevor Hughes, Executive Director of the International Association of Privacy Professionals (IAPP). In an exclusive interview, Hughes discusses:

The role of the IAPP;

Key legislation in the U.S. and internationally;

Where organizations need to improve privacy protection.

Hughes is an attorney specializing in e-commerce, privacy and technology law. In his role as Executive Director of the IAPP, Hughes leads the world’s largest association of privacy professionals.

Read the interview on GovInfoSecurity.com. Here’s a snippet:

FIELD: Now interesting that you mention public policy because one of the things that we have seen over the life of your organization is a number of individual states have an active privacy legislation, and then that number grows each year. There is a lot of discussion about privacy legislation nationally. What do you envision happening on the national scale, if anything?

HUGHES: It is difficult to predict what will happen, but I can certainly predict that something will happen. I think it is fair to say that privacy is an unsettled area of law, particularly in the United States. In other areas of the world, while not completely settled, there are broad-based privacy laws that at least attempt to apply to broad marketplace uses of data. We don’t have that in the United States. We have a more sectoral approach to privacy and that has opened the door for the states to be very active incubators on privacy laws.

A really good example of that is the entire class of privacy laws related to notice of security breach. That started in California in 2003, a Bill, FB1386, was our first notice of security breach law and that idea has really caught across the country. We now have over 45 state laws focusing on notice of security breach. There has been a significant federal debate as to whether we need a federal law that would pre-empt those state laws or supplement those state laws, and we have seen in some specific areas 00 healthcare, financial services — where notice of security breaches actually have been implemented at a federal level.

But as to a broad federal privacy bill, that is a really heavy lift, I think, for Congress. As we all know, Congress is a bit focused right now on the financial crisis and healthcare. So certainly through the remainder of 2009 I think it is unlikely that we would see broad-based privacy legislation in the United States emerge.

We may see bills emerge in areas related to online advertising or online privacy more broadly, and in 2010 I certainly think that the debate will occur. We know that there are hearings coming up just this week on privacy and those sorts of things, hearings, roundtables with the Federal Trade Commission — those will certainly be happening as well next year.

But as to whether we will see a national privacy legislation, I would have to say the crystal ball is pretty cloudy on that, and it is a little unclear whether something like that would actually gain traction.

Possibly Related Posts

No Related Post

Cory I suggest you read this about FACT Ltd:

http://filesoup.com/forum/index.php?s=&showtopic=29230&view=findpost&p=170615

..and then I suggest you read this judgement from last week regarding how the Court Of Appeal, after a mysterious last minute change of Judge (Levison LJ), then literally reversed 30 years of law and gave private companies (eg FACT) the ability to have the Police hold property for their “investigations” and private prosecutions.

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/law/reports/article6911108.ece

The law world is pretty stunned, especially as the first instance judgement was so strongly in favour of Scopelight Ltd having their property back only to have the very judge who was parachuted in last minute rip their counsel to bits in a stunning act of hostility and then hijack the appeal and write the judgement rewriting the existing law.

In brief the Vickermans (who own Scopelight Ltd which in turn owns SurfTheChannel.com a video search engine) were arrested in 2008 after FACT told Northumbria Police they were “selling movies and TV programmes” through the STC website, something that anyone who uses the site knows is a total lie. The police handed all the property to FACT and four months later the CPS decided that No Further Action was required as the Vickermans had not broken any law as far as they could see. Quite reasonably the couple then asked for their property back and the Police informed them that FACT were refusing to return it. The Vickerman's/Scopelight sued FACT and the Police for it back and FACT retaliated by mounting an abusive private prosecution against the couple for mass copyright infringement and conspiracy to defraud. FACT also tried to financially strangle them by having their pet unit, the Bedfordshire Trading Stabndards Financial Intelligence Unit, hit the couple with a financial restraint order which yet again used evidence from FACT that the website “sold tv and movies” and that it was a “torrent” website. After a month of financial starvation and credit rating ruin the couple got the order discharged after the BTSFIU refused to defend themselves in court (they did not want their lies exposed).

In mid 2009 the case over the property came before Sharp J in the High court and she ruled that the police could not retain property for a private prosecutor. She gave an in depth analysis of the issues of the case and why it was dangerous to allow private companies to have power over other people's property as FACT were used to having (through the Police). FACT were beat, the Vickermans and Scopelight had won. But then FACT appealed and as can be seen from the judgement Levison LJ slalommed around the existing law to get to the undoubted pre-ordained verdict that he wanted to reach.

FACT have lied, cheated and, from the Court Of Appeal farce, seems to have corrupted its way to a victory. The only route left fopr the Vickermans is the Supreme Court but FACT are trying to bankrupt the couple so that they can't afford to fund the petition to the Supreme court.

It is absolutely disgusting. If you are worried about what is in this bill and what powers the copyright industry may get you need to wake up and smell the shit, they already have these powers and are ruining peoples lives as we speak.

A key, centrist digital rights group is set to put out a report calling for strong federal privacy laws and guidelines to regulate the growing tracking and targeting of Americans online. It argues that the self-regulation approach that industry fights for just hasn’t worked.

The online ad industry has “historically failed to fully implement its self-regulatory principles,” according to the 34-page draft report by the Center for Democracy and Technology. CDT is a centrist D.C. group that works with and is substantially funded by the tech industry, including companies like Facebook, Google and AOL that are deeply invested in targeted ads. ”Recently revised self-regulatory principles still fall short (.pdf) even as written,” charges the draft, obtained by Wired.com.

These tough words spearhead a new tactic for a group more used to convening inside-the-Beltway tech policy forums than launching ACLU-style send-outraged-e-mail campaigns. The CDT, which splintered off from the rabble-rousing Electronic Frontier Foundation 15 years ago, is also planning to launch a “Take Back Your Privacy” campaign on Thursday, designed to garner support for its call for comprehensive federal privacy legislation.

Dozens of tech firms, known and obscure, record users’ behaviors as they interact with search engines, blogs, e-commerce sites and even government websites. The tracking goes on in the background with little knowledge by consumers and even less oversight from government authorities. The tech industry — like others subject to potentially blunt-forced government regulation — has argued that policing itself was enough to prevent egregious privacy intrusions that could proliferate without any real chance individuals would even be aware of them.

High tech’s argument that the internet is moving too quickly for regulation is a common and persuasive refrain whenever Congress contemplates regulating the that has been abetted by groups like the CDT. But now the CDT’s position is simply that the time for government regulation has come. “Fully protecting consumer privacy interests here will require Congress to pass general consumer privacy legislation and to give the FTC broader rulemaking authority over consumer privacy in general and behavioral advertising practices more specifically.”

The final report is set to come out December 7, the same day the FTC holds the first of three privacy roundtables. The FTC, which enforces fair business practices, has been studying how companies collect information about people’s online usage, the better to deliver lucrative ads targeted to their interests. It issued a behavioral advertising report, laying out some basic rules, in February.

Under new leadership in the Obama administration, the FTC is expected to take a more aggressive stance towards online tracking and privacy issues. For example, Jessica Rich, the top privacy official at the FTC, was currently promoted to deputy chief of the FTC’s Consumer Protection Bureau. But the FTC seems to be waiting for Obama or the Congress to give its pent-up energy some direction — the way it did with the FCC by assigning it the job of writing a National Broadband Policy.

That direction could come from Congressman Rick Boucher (D-Virginia), who is expected by year’s end to introduce his long-awaited, and industry-feared bill to regulate behavioral targeting on the internet. Since the FTC’s last set of hearings in 2008, the online ad industry has been alternately arguing that new rules will destroy the internet and the free, ad-supported services we’ve all come to love while simultaneously attempting to fend off regulation by offering new self-regulation guidelines.

For instance, the Interactive Advertising Bureau, Association of National Advertisers, the American Association of Advertising Agencies and the Direct Marketing Association offered anostensibly stronger set of prohibitions last summer, but they were almost laughable in their permissiveness. For instance, in terms of health data, the only thing prohibited was collecting data about prescriptions and or individual’s medical records. Every thing else you read or type in a search box about your health are fair game under their proposed rules.*

For its part, online ad giant Google long made its money from small text ads that were placed using keywords found in a webpage or in a search query. But last spring, after having spent $3 billion on the display advertising giant Doubleclick, Google decided that it would do something it said it would never need to do: deliver ads based on user behavior. It gingerly ventured into behavioral ads with YouTube and third-party sites that use Google’s ads. And it says it doesn’t record behavior based on Google accounts, just browser cookies (That means what you do on your work laptop won’t affect the ads you see on a home computer).

Unlike other companies, however, Google actually lets users see its deductions. Using its Ads Preferences tool, you can check out whether Google thinks you are interested in Wildlife or Bollywood movies based on where its watched you travel around the web. You can also add and remove categories, as well as opt-out (per browser, not per Google ID).

It’s a good bit of transparency, and something that other companies will likely be debuting soon.

“Google is promising these are the only things that they are serving targeted ads about,” said Ari Schwartz, the vice president of the
Center for Democracy and Technology. “If that’s so, then a lot of issues about sensitive data and data storage go away.”

While Schwartz is a fan of that tool, such self-regulatory approaches aren’t enough — at least according to his own organization’s draft report.

This report concludes that, although progress has been made in expanding self-regulatory efforts, self-regulation alone will continue to be insufficient to adequately protect consumers in regards to behavioral advertising. CDT strongly believes now is the time for Congress and the FTC to play a larger role to ensure that consumer interests are fully protected.

We believe that fully protecting consumer privacy interests here will require Congress to pass general consumer privacy legislation and to give the FTC broader rulemaking authority over consumer privacy in general and behavioral advertising practices more specifically. Self-regulation can only effectively work when we have baseline legislation and regulatory authority to provide a meaningful backbone.

Schwartz says there’s no real new position in the report, and that it’s just a very detailed compendium of positions they previously taken in public.

Still, the group has circulated the draft for comment from interested parties.

“We are hoping to have feedback from industry and public interest groups, so that people are not shock when it comes out,” Schwartz said.

The tech industry has long argued that the online world is still too nascent for regulation and that the marketplace will take care of the worst offenders, such as spyware vendors. Ad networks worry that if they will go out of business if they are forced to get consent before they can collect data about a user.

As a response to concerns about tracking cookies, the Network Advertising Initiative tried to appease the privacy community and the feds by creating a one-stop shop for opting out of third-party ad network tracking cookies (these are ad networks that track your behavior across the many different websites they serve ads on, using just one cookie — such as the DoubleClick one served by Wired.com). But the initiative has been lackluster; companies would come and go, the opt-outs would fail, and the opt-out lengths would vary drastically.

While it’s clear that changes are coming, the EFF’s Lee Tien doesn’t think the FTC will try to issue any serious new rules until Congress sends it a clear directive about what it wants from its consumer watchdog. The upcoming privacy hearings let the FTC bark menacingly a bit in anticipation of being let off the leash sometime soon.

“This is a really big attempt to signal that privacy is important and do privacy work without having to have a single thing they are investigating,” Tien said. “This lets them send a message that we are serious about privacy, and we want to do something.”

“I don’t expect them to say what they want to do outside of an enforcement action. Congress will speak before they do, in my opinion.”

* Update: This post originally attributed the self-regulation guidelines solely to the Interactive Advertising Bureau, but there were three other organizations involved. The post also said that only prescription data couldn’t be collected, but individual’s medical records on file with their doctor are also banned. Anything else one types into a search engine or reads about, including the names of prescription drugs or medical conditions, can be collected and added to a user profile under the guidelines. The post also erroneously called the group the Internet Advertising Bureau. We regret the error.

See Also:

Online Behavioral Targeting Targeted by Feds, Critics
Analysis: Google’s Ad Targeting Turns Algorithms on You
Large ISPs Endorse Behavioral Targeting Guidelines
Privacy Groups Urge Curbs on Online Targeting
Google Seals DoubleClick Deal, Learns More About You
FTC Tells Amateur Bloggers to Disclose Freebies or Be Fined
Outspoken Privacy Advocate Joins FTC

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

This entry was posted on Thursday, December 3rd, 2009 at 5:31 pm and is filed under Tech. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

ryantremblay