If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Fox News)   MPAA's Chris Dodd threatens to cut off Hollywood's campaign contributions if Obama does not change his position on SOPA   (foxnews.com) divider line 478
    More: Dumbass, Chris Dodd, obama, MPAA, Hollywood, campaign contributions, Hollywood studios, Motion Picture Association of America, News Corp.  
•       •       •

14136 clicks; posted to Main » on 20 Jan 2012 at 8:28 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



478 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-01-20 10:36:53 AM
Can I sue the MPAA for the damages and suffering cuased by viewing Avatar?

/I want my time back.
//Because that was quite a wretched movie.
 
2012-01-20 10:38:10 AM

CPennypacker: Instead of focusing on punishing people for copying, the artists and industry groups should focus on adding value to purchased media so that people want to buy it and figure out a formula that accurately reflects lost revenue from piracy and attribute that, instead, to marketing costs. People listening to your music and watching your movies is generally a good thing for your artists in terms of exposure. Taking people to court for this nonsense is bad PR.


They are making some effort to do this. Blu-rays often come with dvds and digital copies so you can watch the same movie legally on your TV, your PC, and your portable gizmo. It's not perfect, but it's a start.

The increase of collectibles bundled with flagship releases and promotional giveaways is another way to get people into stores.

Nothing is going to be perfect, and there's no possible way for the industry to monetize every instance where a song is played or a movie viewed (although that seems to be their ultimate goal) but they have to realize that the harder they push, the harder people will push back.
 
2012-01-20 10:38:50 AM

mamoru: I'd be more encouraged to vote for Obama's re-election if I knew he wasn't receiving (or better yet wasn't accepting) campaign contributions from the MPAA or any other group intent on curtailing freedoms in order to increase their own profits.


see, this is where, even if you think he's bat shiat crazy, Ron Paul starts to look good. He can't be bought
 
2012-01-20 10:39:26 AM

g4lt: If there was only some way that a President with balls (not so fast, Obama) to only veto a part of a bill, a line item if you will...


If only SCOTUS hadn't declared that unconstitutional in 1996.

Link (new window)
 
2012-01-20 10:41:13 AM

fracto73: downtownkid: fracto73: downtownkid: BurnShrike: downtownkid: So that changes the accounting, but it doesn't make it okay to take something that doesn't belong to you without paying.

The key point is that you're not "taking" anything. You're "copying" it. The latter leaves the original in place.


If someone purchases a movie I helped make I get a very small portion of the price they paid for it. If they "copy" it I do not. Explain to me how this is not hurting me again?


Punching you might hurt you, but it isn't taking anything from you either.


Only a disingenuous twat would play the semantic games you are. If you really want we can go down the same road again. Blah blah blah, it isn't technically stealing, it's really a license violation blah blah blah. Both you and that conversation bore me, and ultimately end with the fact that you are doing something you shouldn't be. Something that takes money out of my pocket.


If semantics don't matter why keep using the 'stealing' line when it isn't true? You see the fact of the matter is that it doesn't take money out of your pocket. That money was never in your pocket and unless you can show that it was going to be you are simply trying to change the language of your accusation to gain sympathy. You should not accuse people of playing the semantics game while you are doing it yourself.



I use "stealing" because it is essentially true. It is much easier than typing "violating a license agreement by obtaining a digital copy through illegal means by a segment of the population; a certain unknown portion of which may not have chosen to legally obtain the license were they obligated to pay whereas another portion certainly would have paid for it but avoided doing so because they were able to thus depriving me of residual payments which I earned through the fruits of my labors", every time a twunt like you makes the same old boring and easily disproved argument that you are making.
 
2012-01-20 10:41:37 AM

heinekenftw: g4lt: If there was only some way that a President with balls (not so fast, Obama) to only veto a part of a bill, a line item if you will...

If only SCOTUS hadn't declared that unconstitutional in 1996.

Link (new window)



That is why you need a president with balls. Newt for instance, has said he will ignore the courts and rule as he sees fit.
 
2012-01-20 10:41:59 AM

Fodder_Jack: So... not really news to most of us... but Chris Dodd just made it abundantly clear that Washington is hopelessly corrupt. When you can publicly (and in front of news cameras) expose your bribery - and no one bats an eye - then you know the corruption is so deeply infesting Washington that it should be nuked from orbit... it's the only way.


In the words of the late, great Rep. Jesse M. Unruh: "Money is the mother's milk of politics. If you can't eat their food, drink their booze, screw their women and then vote against them, you have no business being up here."
 
2012-01-20 10:42:27 AM

mongbiohazard: Secret Agent X23: Dodd, who became CEO of the Motion Picture Association of America after leaving the Senate in 2011, noted the movie "Avatar" was stolen by online pirates 21 million times. Such acts, he said, threaten to decimate his industry.

Chris, buddy, come here. Listen, let me clue you in on something: Pointing to your all-time box office champ isn't going to convince anyone with a functioning brain that piracy is hurting your little industry.

Yeah, yeah, I know. That still doesn't account for Congress...


Seriously. I watched it 11 times in the theater in 3D, once in IMAX, and bought it on Bluray. Am I supposed to feel bad that between the theater run and before it's release on disc that I pirated a copy? It shattered box office records and made an ungodly amount of money for them... How farking greedy of a-holes are they?

I absolutely love that THAT was his big example. It exemplifies how out of touch with reality the industry's complaints are. They don't need more power and influence over our legislation... they need LESS.


Holy shiat man. You should feel bad you spent over a day's time in the theater watching a mediocre movie. Twice, even three times sure, but 12?!
 
2012-01-20 10:42:53 AM
The assumption that those who download an item would go and see the item at the current cost is erroneous. Many people while willing to do something for "free" (with the associated risks) would not do it for the cost of the movie, game or music. I would love to know what the percentages are for people who download digital materials either movies, music or games would have bought the product in the first place. I'm fairly certain that it is some what close to 0. So do those 21 million avatar downloads count as lost revenue? Or do only the fraction of a percent of those who downloaded instead of seeing it. It seems that the xxAAs are counting them all as lost revenue when they should only be counting a fraction of them.

Oh and obligatory link to copyright warning video.
 
2012-01-20 10:43:13 AM

Jackson Herring: BloodySaxon: But the Fark-heralded genius and best senator EVAR Al Franken is still lovin' it.

You mean Al Franken, the senator who's been roundly criticized on fark for weeks over his SOPA stance? What I'm saying is, go fark yourself.


Oh I know he's finally taking a a little beating here. I've seen at least a dozen anti-Frank posts since SOPA reared its head. I ony wish I could cite the gushing fellatio the guy received for no good reason up until this point.
 
2012-01-20 10:43:22 AM
Mr. Right:
And is anyone else damned tired of military personnel and veterans being the go-to hostage? What level of evil makes a person shrug and say "We get what we want or the veterans are cut off." Or "That's a nice VA hospital system you've got there ... be a shame if anything happened to it." Why do we put up with this cr@p?

All of this bullshiat with rider bills makes me wonder if there's any good reason for rider bills at all.

Sure, it makes the process faster, but it also allows congressmen to hold bills, like military and veteran pay, hostage.

If there was only some way that a President with balls (not so fast, Obama) to only veto a part of a bill, a line item if you will...

G-d help us, where is the "sadly true" button?

A line item veto would serve two purposes. One, it would allow a president to get rid of nonsense riders. Two, it would allow the voters to see what kind of dreck a president DIDN'T line out.


Problem is its also very prone to abuse. Bill eventually makes it way out of Congress, solid compromises from both sides in order to reach a deal that everyone is ok with, and the President then just crosses out everything that the opposing party wanted.
 
2012-01-20 10:45:36 AM

BloodySaxon: Oh I know he's finally taking a a little beating here. I've seen at least a dozen anti-Frank posts since SOPA reared its head. I ony wish I could cite the gushing fellatio the guy received for no good reason up until this point.


Ah I see, you just wanted an opportunity to shiatpost.
 
2012-01-20 10:46:42 AM
So let me get this straight...

In a time when the American public is sick of corporate control over Washington and quite vocal about with protests and repeals, this guy, Chris Dodd, thinks it's a good idea to announce that his company won't throw any more money at politicians if they don't support his endeavor to basically break the Internet and screw over the little people?

Is he that detached from the rest of America? Or just retarded?
 
2012-01-20 10:47:09 AM
Where are the Hollywood lobbies going to spend their money, on the Republicans? There's more SOPA/PIPA pushback coming from the GOP than the Dems (which goes to show how much the bribes those contributions have bought.) The movie and music moguls have been slowly, carefully planning for a year (guided by Dodd, no doubt) to grease this legislation right through with a minimum of fuss, and it almost worked.

They've seen how the patent whores have been doing it, searching for obscure patent infractions and suing big pockets "infringers" until they cough up. The moguls want in on this action. They don't want to "protect" anything, they want a new revenue stream. Unless they're terminally stupid, they've surely been told that blocking DNS names isn't going to slow down real torrent pirates in the slightest. No, they want to sue people.

Anything to avoid the reality that they need to change their business model, that iTunes and Netflix is the way of the future, and exploit it.

And the internet/tech industry has finally got to realize that, yes, they need to buy some politicians. Heck, it's not even that expensive. They should just pony up the money, ferchissakes. It's how business is done.
 
2012-01-20 10:47:41 AM
But lobbying totally isn't legalized bribery. It's free-market, Jesus loving free speech. After all, the literal definition of bribe is this: "Persuade (someone) to act in one's favor, typically illegally or dishonestly, by a gift of money or other inducement." Just because I'll threaten not to "speak" to you anymore if you don't do my bidding, doesn't mean that I expect favors in return for my contributions. Heck no. It just means I'm upset and giving you the silent treatment. My teenage daughter does it to me all the time. Should we toss her in the gulag for bribery?? What a ridiculous notion. I can't believe that anyone could possibly suggest that allowing private organizations to hand over truckloads of cash to politicians could be considered corruption or bribery. Corporations aren't physical people; they don't have mouths! They can't speak in words. They can only speak in dollars. If you take away their right to "speak" to the politicians, then who will speak for them? Nobody, that's who! Then congress will pass a bunch of job-killing regulations, we'll take our money and our jobs and go to Freedomland, and unemployment will be 100%. I'll bet you wouldn't like that, now would you? Now do what I say, or no more speech for you!!
 
2012-01-20 10:49:19 AM

HotWingConspiracy: Yeah man, it's a big conspiracy.


No conspiracy; Anonymous (and OWS by extension since much of OWS was set up by Anonymous) is largely to the left of Lenin, politically speaking.

The Democrats are the "good guys" (or at least the "least bad" guys) since they support many of the same progressive movements and programs that many in Anonymous support and want expanded.

/you're not making the mistake of thinking Anonymous is apolitical, are you?
 
2012-01-20 10:49:27 AM

Lunatic Calm: Mr. Right:


A line item veto would serve two purposes. One, it would allow a president to get rid of nonsense riders. Two, it would allow the voters to see what kind of dreck a president DIDN'T line out.

Problem is its also very prone to abuse. Bill eventually makes it way out of Congress, solid compromises from both sides in order to reach a deal that everyone is ok with, and the President then just crosses out everything that the opposing party wanted.


You're right. Every system is subject to abuse. But there would be more transparency with a line item veto. With the dissemination of information on the internet, hiding irrelevant riders would be much more difficult for anyone to get away with.
 
2012-01-20 10:49:46 AM

Jackson Herring: BloodySaxon: Oh I know he's finally taking a a little beating here. I've seen at least a dozen anti-Frank posts since SOPA reared its head. I ony wish I could cite the gushing fellatio the guy received for no good reason up until this point.

Ah I see, you just wanted an opportunity to shiatpost.


You deserve a little dirty Sanchez now and then.
 
2012-01-20 10:49:54 AM

downtownkid: I use "stealing" because it is essentially true.



How is it essentially true? You have everything you had before the act. No money in your possession, or slated to go to you has been removed. You can't even show that piracy has a net negative effect on revenue. While there are studies have shown that there are people who would have bought the content if it wasn't available for download, they ignore the portion of people who would not have bought it if they hadn't been exposed to it through illegal means. When studies account for the additional exposure piracy gives there is a tipping point where, without such exposure the content would have sold fewer copies.

One such study (new window)
 
2012-01-20 10:49:55 AM

mamoru: I'd be more encouraged to vote for Obama's re-election if I knew he wasn't receiving (or better yet wasn't accepting) campaign contributions from the MPAA or any other group intent on curtailing freedoms in order to increase their own profits.


this, THIS, THIS. A THOUSAND TIMES THIS!

If after hearing this, Obama starts to openly support SOPA, he should be impeached.
 
2012-01-20 10:50:06 AM

Secret Agent X23: jakomo002: FTA; "You can complain and say, well, actors make a lot of money and they don't have to worry about this," said Dodd. "You tell that to that camera guy, you tell that to that makeup artist, you tell that to that truck driver out there who made, makes a living because they work in this industry.

Hey Dodd, the makeup artist and the truck driver GET PAID whether the movie is a stinker or an Oscar contender. As soon as shooting wraps, they cash their final paycheck and then move on to the next production. Same thing for the actors. Maybe 0.1% of actors actually get a cut of the box office receipts.


Yeah, what our good friend Mr. Dodd needs to do here is come up with a list of movies that were never produced primarily because of piracy. That's where you would have your lost jobs among the camera and makeup people.


It's like all of those people that would have started a business, if it wasn't for that damn gummermint.
 
2012-01-20 10:51:25 AM

HotWingConspiracy: It's like all of those people that would have started a business, if it wasn't for that damn gummermint.


All those small business owners who would have hired more people, if it wasn't for all the danged uncertainty
 
2012-01-20 10:52:10 AM

BloodySaxon: yves0010: rebelyell2006: Obama should respond by getting the Attorney General to take down the RIAA and MPAA using the RICO Act. Just for kicks. The Chicago way.

That would be a nice thing for us normal people... Dont care who takes them out. RIAA and MPAA need to just go away.

OMG DEREGULATION SOMALIA


The only Reason I think they should go away is the fact that they sue people over 1 downloaded song / movie for millions. A normal person does not have that in teir life time. I can understand maybe a few $1000's but for $12 million... thats just being greedy. Both organizations are corrupted and need to be cleaned out and have people who are willing to change and look at the modern day and how it works.
 
2012-01-20 10:52:32 AM

Sangi: The assumption that those who download an item would go and see the item at the current cost is erroneous. Many people while willing to do something for "free" (with the associated risks) would not do it for the cost of the movie, game or music. I would love to know what the percentages are for people who download digital materials either movies, music or games would have bought the product in the first place. I'm fairly certain that it is some what close to 0. So do those 21 million avatar downloads count as lost revenue? Or do only the fraction of a percent of those who downloaded instead of seeing it. It seems that the xxAAs are counting them all as lost revenue when they should only be counting a fraction of them.

Oh and obligatory link to copyright warning video.



I think there's a cost/convenience trade-off at play. Clearly, these people were interested in seeing the film and going to the relative hassle of downloading it. But look at itunes. Reasonably priced easy to access music has been wildly successful. Many millions of people would rather pay a few bucks for rapid easy access than go to the trouble of finding and downloading a free version somewhere. And now you have things like Spotify that are even easier than itunes.

Obviously, the film industry should make their products easy and inexpensive enough that most anyone would rather do that than pirate it. There will always be pirates, no doubt, but they can be minimized to the point where it no longer affects the bottom line.

But given that the MPAA blog looks like it was set up by a 5th grader, I don't expect them to figure this out anytime soon. Or they will do foolish things like force netflix to raise their prices through exorbitant and greedy licensing fees.
 
2012-01-20 10:52:35 AM
It seems like just yesterday he & the MPAA were complaining about abuses of power.

/actually it was Wednesday
 
2012-01-20 10:52:50 AM

Hydra: HotWingConspiracy: Yeah man, it's a big conspiracy.

No conspiracy; Anonymous (and OWS by extension since much of OWS was set up by Anonymous) is largely to the left of Lenin, politically speaking.

The Democrats are the "good guys" (or at least the "least bad" guys) since they support many of the same progressive movements and programs that many in Anonymous support and want expanded.


No, the democrats most certainly do not support the things "Anonymous" would like.

/you're not making the mistake of thinking Anonymous is apolitical, are you?

They're political, but trying to cram them in to our little joke world of digital politics is pretty much insane.
 
2012-01-20 10:58:51 AM

g4lt: heinekenftw: Lunaville: Mr. Right: Brother_Mouzone: it seems fairly obvious to me that this sopa is going to die an early death soon. The sponsor, Marco Rubio, a republican has backed off big time, in Illinois Senator Kirk, another Repub is bailing. This is pretty much a DOA thing.

A lot of the sponsors have backed off this thing because what appeared to be a good idea wasn't really when the fine print and its implications were figured out. The scarey part is that some supporters have already threatened to tie parts of this bill to other bills, like funding for WIC or veterans benefits that nobody is going to vote against. It will behoove anyone who enjoys the freedom of the internet to maintain constant vigilance.

And is anyone else damned tired of military personnel and veterans being the go-to hostage? What level of evil makes a person shrug and say "We get what we want or the veterans are cut off." Or "That's a nice VA hospital system you've got there ... be a shame if anything happened to it." Why do we put up with this cr@p?

All of this bullshiat with rider bills makes me wonder if there's any good reason for rider bills at all.

Sure, it makes the process faster, but it also allows congressmen to hold bills, like military and veteran pay, hostage.

If there was only some way that a President with balls (not so fast, Obama) to only veto a part of a bill, a line item if you will...


I don't know why people keep bringing this up. The line item veto was tried and declared unconstitutional during the Clinton administration.
 
2012-01-20 10:59:53 AM

Sangi: The assumption that those who download an item would go and see the item at the current cost is erroneous. Many people while willing to do something for "free" (with the associated risks) would not do it for the cost of the movie, game or music. I would love to know what the percentages are for people who download digital materials either movies, music or games would have bought the product in the first place. I'm fairly certain that it is some what close to 0. So do those 21 million avatar downloads count as lost revenue? Or do only the fraction of a percent of those who downloaded instead of seeing it. It seems that the xxAAs are counting them all as lost revenue when they should only be counting a fraction of them.


If you're downloading something, you have some desire to have it. To claim that no one who downloads something would otherwise buy it is impossible to accept. Do these people exist? Certainly. Are they the majority of downloaders? Impossible to say. But I can't believe that out of 21 million people, the number who would actually buy it are statistically insignificant.
 
2012-01-20 11:02:15 AM
lh4.googleusercontent.com

"Dodd? Who the fark is Dodd??"

/image taken from a Hollywood movie
//sorry for getting you shut down, Fark
 
2012-01-20 11:02:43 AM
I hate Obama. I will gain a good amount of respect for Obama if he responds to this guy that he can stick his campaign contributions up his ass.

Not Obama's ass. The guy making the threats's ass.
 
2012-01-20 11:03:15 AM

Great_Milenko: Sangi: The assumption that those who download an item would go and see the item at the current cost is erroneous. Many people while willing to do something for "free" (with the associated risks) would not do it for the cost of the movie, game or music. I would love to know what the percentages are for people who download digital materials either movies, music or games would have bought the product in the first place. I'm fairly certain that it is some what close to 0. So do those 21 million avatar downloads count as lost revenue? Or do only the fraction of a percent of those who downloaded instead of seeing it. It seems that the xxAAs are counting them all as lost revenue when they should only be counting a fraction of them.

If you're downloading something, you have some desire to have it. To claim that no one who downloads something would otherwise buy it is impossible to accept. Do these people exist? Certainly. Are they the majority of downloaders? Impossible to say. But I can't believe that out of 21 million people, the number who would actually buy it are statistically insignificant.



But you must count the number who actually DID buy it. There is no reason to assume that those 21 million people didn't spend money on the movie.
 
2012-01-20 11:04:19 AM
I still love the idea of "If you don't support SOPA, then we'll support the party that blames us for all of society's ills!"

Yeah. That'll work out great.
 
2012-01-20 11:04:37 AM

scottydoesntknow: Holy shiat man. You should feel bad you spent over a day's time in the theater watching a mediocre movie. Twice, even three times sure, but 12?!



To clarify: 9 times in the regular release, once in IMAX and once more when it was re-released. And I took someone with me every time but the re-release.

I haven't watched it a single time all the way through in 2D. I tried, and it didn't grab my attention all that much. It was a movie that was meant to be watched in 3D, and in 3D I think it's a hell of a spectacle. Yeah, the story wasn't exactly riveting and genre-defying or anything, but it was good enough not to distract. The real reason to watch it... the amazing visuals. Holy shiat that movie looked pretty, and the CG was just mind-bogglingly good.

I like 3D movies and I really, really enjoyed the theater experience of Avatar. When I like something I put my money where my mouth is. If I'm going to pirate anything, then I damn well better financially support the things I believe deserve it and want to see more of.
 
2012-01-20 11:07:00 AM

yves0010: BloodySaxon: yves0010: rebelyell2006: Obama should respond by getting the Attorney General to take down the RIAA and MPAA using the RICO Act. Just for kicks. The Chicago way.

That would be a nice thing for us normal people... Dont care who takes them out. RIAA and MPAA need to just go away.

OMG DEREGULATION SOMALIA

The only Reason I think they should go away is the fact that they sue people over 1 downloaded song / movie for millions. A normal person does not have that in teir life time. I can understand maybe a few $1000's but for $12 million... thats just being greedy. Both organizations are corrupted and need to be cleaned out and have people who are willing to change and look at the modern day and how it works.


As things stand they have no chance in hell of stemming the tide of illegal downloading. They pick and choose cases (college students, teen girls, etc) to garner media attention and scare people off of it. There was a bit of controversy in my school about opening our inner tube intarwebs activity to scrutiny. This was almsot 10 (sob) years ago.
 
2012-01-20 11:08:51 AM
Poorly written bill is written poorly. Fark you, Dodd! You want to stop downloading, put some due process into your bill and then, maybe, you can stop downloading.

As for Obama, HE DOESN'T NEED YOU, YOU FUOKER!

While it's true that artists are generally liberal and progressive, Industry executives are not. The continuing wave of technology is going to completely fark up your business model, meaning that it's not the law that's the problem for you, it's progress. Change with the times or join the buggy whip union, MPAA.
 
2012-01-20 11:10:38 AM
I can totally see the Hollywood liberal elite reversing direction and supporting Republicans this go around. Yeah, that's going to happen.
 
2012-01-20 11:10:48 AM
Chris Dodd = Dino Vercotti

/'cos things break, don't they?
 
2012-01-20 11:13:50 AM

MooseUpNorth: Seriously, guys, can we, as an internet, just boycott Hollywood already?


Wouldn't accomplish anything. If a boycott was actually effective, they'd just spin it as "See? Profits are down, so pirating IS hurting our industry!", regardless of the facts.
 
2012-01-20 11:15:43 AM
There aren't any movies really worth watching anyway.
 
2012-01-20 11:15:56 AM

plewis: Poorly written bill is written poorly. Fark you, Dodd! You want to stop downloading, put some due process into your bill and then, maybe, you can stop downloading.


^THIS^


plewis: As for Obama, HE DOESN'T NEED YOU, YOU FUOKER!



Yes he does, actually.

The "support" of this crowd extends beyond money.

Media has the power to present the issues in any light they choose, molding public opinion to suit their agenda.

They tell Uhmericuns what to think and how to vote.
 
2012-01-20 11:17:28 AM
Who has more money: The Hollywood community or the Tech Community?.
 
2012-01-20 11:18:00 AM

downtownkid: BurnShrike: downtownkid: So that changes the accounting, but it doesn't make it okay to take something that doesn't belong to you without paying.

The key point is that you're not "taking" anything. You're "copying" it. The latter leaves the original in place.


If someone purchases a movie I helped make I get a very small portion of the price they paid for it. If they "copy" it I do not. Explain to me how this is not hurting me again?


Do you know how pensions work? They take whatever you pay into it, in your case, presumably your dues plus a very tiny portion of residuals (this is the "principle"), and they invest it in something, typically hedge-funds(this is why the recent collapse, which occurred primarily in the hedge-fund market, hurt pensions so bad), and pay out the pensions from the returns on those investments, or more accurately, the interest earned from reinvesting those returns in yet more hedge-funds (because god forbid anyone base something as vital to a person's livelihood as a pension in something safe like government bonds). By your logic, everyone that is part of the economy, but who doesn't invest it whatever the hedge-funds your pension invests in, is also hurting you because they are not feeding your pension. Should they then pass a law requiring everyone to buy in to Guild pension-associated hedge-funds? Of course not. Not to get too philosophical on this, but what better proof could their be of Marx's contention that capitalism alienates workers from their labor than a stage hand complaining of how the loss of potential interest on potential investments made by a hedge-fund he doesn't know the name or activities of, is directly hurting his well-being via potential gains in his pension?

Folks who see these movies at the home of a friend but don't own a copy themselves are also experiencing your labor without paying for it; are they also hurting you? The primary issue involving piracy isn't sites like Pirate Bay or protocols like Bittorrent; it's the whole-scale knock-off industry of China and Indonesia, and the proper response to that is not going after Johnny McStreamsalot in his college dorm room, it's actually taking trade law seriously. However, big fish like CCP and the government of Indonesia, neither of which have ever taken a single move to discourage this activity despite repeated complaints from content super-powers like the US and Japan, are hard to go after, and, as sovereign entities, impossible to compel against their will baring military force. Instead, the industry puts their efforts into going after what they consider the "low-hanging fruit" of individual, developed-world streamers. Unfortunately, this has perennially proven to be a gigantic waste of time. Not only does it never work out for them, and frequently turn the viewing public against them with stories of poor 23 year olds having multi-million dollar fines levied against them, making "piracy" more socially acceptable, but it has also, frequently, ends up threatening perfectly legal, protected, and long-established forms of unauthorized IP use like parody, sampling, and the sort of pop-culture memery that the internet (and youtube in particular) are famous for. And for what? The opportunity costs of not profiting from these potential rich-world customers pales in comparison to the actual losses suffered due to genuine counterfeiting in Pacifica and East Asia.

Hollywood is never -never- going to make up the sales it loses in China, Malaysia, India, Indonesia, and Vietnam to those states' tolerated economy-wide counterfeiting on the occasional torrenting of the rich-world. They should stop trying before their attempts to do so reduce the 1st Amendment to yet another dead-letter BOR Amendment like the 4th and 5th.
 
2012-01-20 11:18:04 AM

plewis: Poorly written bill is written poorly. Fark you, Dodd! You want to stop downloading, put some due process into your bill and then, maybe, you can stop downloading.

As for Obama, HE DOESN'T NEED YOU, YOU FUOKER!

While it's true that artists are generally liberal and progressive, Industry executives are not. The continuing wave of technology is going to completely fark up your business model, meaning that it's not the law that's the problem for you, it's progress. Change with the times or join the buggy whip union, MPAA.



They are entitled to your money. If you gave them your money, they are entitled to more of it, even when they refuse to accept it.

Take for example mongbiohazard. He payed them, over and over for their content, until they wouldn't let him any more. Then he downloaded it, which served until they let him give them more money. Because their business model says that they won't take money for a certain timeframe he couldn't pay them, yet they will count this as a lost sale. Their business model is flawed, and they refuse to take any credit for it.
 
2012-01-20 11:18:14 AM
Make it easier to buy than to steal and people will start buying.

Why can Redbox do $1 kiosk DVD rentals, but it is unpossible for Amazon et al to have $1 online rentals? I would rather pay a buck for some piece of crap Holliwood flick than have to chase it down on TPB and bother with MKV to PS3 conversions. Really.
 
2012-01-20 11:18:48 AM

MooseUpNorth: Seriously, guys, can we, as an internet, just boycott Hollywood already? 100%, for six months or so. Citing Dodd's threat to Obama as a motivation?

Regardless of your politics, we'd address two problems at once. MPAA would be forced to publicly disavow/fire a lobbyist (which I think we _all_ can agree is worth doing), and Hollywood would be forced to tell the MPAA to shut their whore mouth.


If I boycotted Hollywood, no one would notice. The last movie theater I attended was when I took my 10 year old daughter to see High School Musical 3 because she begged me.

Hollywood should be much more concerned with the fact that people are getting sick of paying $10+ apiece to be corralled into a big room with sticky floors and drink $8+ sodas while eating $6+ popcorn just to have a hipster texting his hipster friends in front of them for 2 hours.

I'd rather wait the 2 months it takes most movies to hit retail and watch them on a 52" plasma with 7.1 surround sound in my house in a comfortable chair with beer and pizza or whatever. And I can pause the movie if I need to hit the head!
 
2012-01-20 11:20:54 AM

John Ra: So let me get this straight...

In a time when the American public is sick of corporate control over Washington and quite vocal about with protests and repeals, this guy, Chris Dodd, thinks it's a good idea to announce that his company won't throw any more money at politicians if they don't support his endeavor to basically break the Internet and screw over the little people?

Is he that detached from the rest of America? Or just retarded?



He probably doesn't think most people will make that (100% valid and accurate) connection. It all depends on whether he turns out to be right in the end or not.

I'm not optimistic about this whole thing. I think that what will happen is that a few weeks or months from now SOPA, PIPA or both will quietly be re-introduced and voted into law. And Obama may make a half-hearted statement which objects to it...... as he signs it into law.
 
2012-01-20 11:24:24 AM

zyrian: Why can Redbox do $1 kiosk DVD rentals, but it is unpossible for Amazon et al to have $1 online rentals?


so true, same with showtime and hbo and whatnot, why make their shows so you can pay by the episode in addition to their subscription service.
 
2012-01-20 11:28:00 AM

styckx: "A White House official later told Fox News the vice president isn't brokering a deal, suggesting Biden misspoke."

This is a first..




Greasing the wheels for the eventual removal of Joe from the 2012 Democratic ticket.
 
2012-01-20 11:28:37 AM

burning_bridge: No kidding. That movie only made more money than almost anything in the history of everything. Terribad example. Of course these idiots are still doing the numbers as if each one of those downloads was a lost sale which is a horribly stupid way to look at things. If a person hears a song off my car stereo that doesn't count for a lost sale no matter how much you wish it did.


What we need is some sort of device that can be fitted to everyone in the US. (And yes, it will be mandatory). It will have audio and video recorders on it, and anytime more than 3 seconds of any copyrighted work is within visual or audible range, you automatically get charged a fee for using that content. If, for some reason, you have already paid for your right to use said content (aka, you bought the DVD and are watching it at home), you can submit a 10 page form in triplicate to the RIAA or MPAA, along with proof of purchase. If the organization involved believes that you were enjoying that content legally, they will send you a refund of your fee in 10 - 12 weeks. Of course, this will be expensive to implement, so everyone will be required to pay a $50/month subscription fee, plus any data charges that may apply to your cell phone bill (of course it will use your cell phone to upload the data! You can't expect them to just provide this service for free!). If you don't currently have a cell phone with a data plan, you will be required to get one. This device will also beam a 30 second advertisement directly into your brain every 3 minutes to help offset the infrastructure costs. Since the legality of forcing every single person in the country to buy this service may be somewhat questionable, you will get a choice. If you do not want to participate, you may go live in one of 5 designated isolation zones, located in remote desert and/or mountain regions of the US. These dead zones will have no cell, radio or television signal reception, and any technology that can display copyrighted material or communicate with the outside world will be strictly prohibited. If you want to leave your exclusion zone, you will need to sign up for a temporary plan for the duration of your absence.

This plan is brought to you by the MPAA, RIAA, and Verizon wireless.
 
2012-01-20 11:28:41 AM

CygnusDarius: Who has more money: The Hollywood community or the Tech Community?.



Who has more political muscle? Who has more power to influence public opinion?
 
Displayed 50 of 478 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report