There is a great (and very detailed) article at Ars Technica here that describes how the numbers regarding piracy, that are oft quoted by the industries that bemoan such things, are totally bogus.

Effectively, the 750,000 jobs that have supposedly been lost and the $250 billion in revenue that the record and movie companies never got, are never sited, and there is apparently no known research to back up those numbers in real life.

To break this down, 750,000 jobs is roughly 8% of the US job force, making that an impossibly big number for any practical or feasible purpose. The number was originally derived from a 2002 US Customs & Border Patrol (yes, that police agency that patrols the US/Mexico border; with all of their super-complex and detailed economic studies and in-house think tanks). The problem is, they admit that that number is a mistake, and there is no data to support it. This, of course, doesn't stop any of the industry pros like the IRAA, the MPAA, or congressional lobbies from using it as a cold, hard number.

The $250 billion is similar in that it also is completely made up. It stems from an FBI report (a similar agency with vast economic studies and in-house  research facilities) where they asked ISPs what they though they IP piracy was, using the top 1% or so of responding users how their piracy effected their IP spending. Those who are statistics majors, you tell me if there is any error in this sample. Two things: 1. $250 billion is more than the combined 2005 domestic revenues of the movie, music, software and video game industries. Those industries would be dead and gone if they lost that much money. Period. Can't be true. 2. That's not how basic economics works. Just because I don't spend $12 on the new Mettalica CD doesn't mean it is a total loss to American economy--I spend that $12 in a different sector of the market like pizza or three gallons of gas. The IP lost some money, but not the economy as a whole.

The short of this isn't that piracy doesn't exist, but it's a far, far smaller problem than anyone in the industry would have you believe. This is why there is so much money dumped into politicians to lobby them for arcane DMCA type laws and the repeal of fair-use statutes. They need to cry tsunami when their wadding pool spills over so they get the legislation they want.

CNET reports that, in making her decision, the judge said:

"I am extending the temporary restraining order because I'm not satisfied in the fact that this technology is not in violation," Patel said following the three-hour hearing. "There are serious questions about copyright violations. There are questions about violations of the [Digital Millennium Copyright Act], and violations of these companies' agreement."

During yesterday's hearing, RealNetworks stuck to its guns, insisting that RealDVD does not crack any of the copy protections on the disc, and that the software does not violate Real's agreement with the DVD Copy Control Association.

But the issue of renting and ripping DVDs reared its head, with Real admitting that the software could allow people to copy films that they did not own.

Both sides issued statements following the ruling yesterday.

From Real:

"We are confident that the Court will determine that RealDVD complies with the DVD CCA license agreement, and that it is not in violation of any copyright laws."

And from the MPAA, which represents the Hollywood studios:

“While it is unfortunate that RealNetworks’ actions forced these legal proceedings, the industry remains focused on actively and comprehensively expanding consumer choice and access to content through web streaming, digital downloads, on-demand services and other offerings.”

Questo è il parere della MPAA, la Motion Picture Association of America, ovvero la potente lobby delle major di Hollywood.

L'incriminato è RealDVD, un programma che tra le altre cose permette di copiare i DVD protetti, ma senza sproteggerli. Il DRM viene copiato così com'è, a differenza dei vari software di ripping che tolgono la protezione e poi copiano. No, RealDVD è "onesto", non fa il furbo. Eppure le major non lo vogliono e hanno fatto causa alla RealNetworks che, per adesso, si è vista costretta a ritirare il prodotto in attesa dell'esito della causa intentatale dalle case cinematografiche.

Secondo la MPAA, RealDVD andrebbe chiamato "RubaDVD". Ma come? Ruba cosa? Io il DVD l'ho comprato e ho il diritto di copiarlo. Secondo loro no e la legge, anche in Italia, dà ragione alle major.

E' illegale nel nostro paese rimuovere le protezioni, anche se a scopo di accedere al diritto di copia. Secondo la legge, i produttori dovrebbero consentire "almeno" la copia analogica, ma nei fatti neppure questa sarà possibile grazie ai nuovi connettori per l'alta definizione.

Sono loro i ladri di diritti, altro che RubaDVD!

A volte mi capita di rispondere, a chi chiede se su GNU/Linux funzionano i file protetti da DRM, che "per fortuna no, non funzionano". E spesso non vengo capito.

Adesso credo sia più chiaro, no?

I DRM vanno boicottati. E' l'unico modo per non farci togliere i nostri diritti di utenti. Non comprate musica da iTunes e altri negozi on line che vendono contenuti protetti, non abbonatevi alle partite e non scaricate film protetti da DRM. Scegliete solo brani o film senza protezione. Per la musica è facile trovarne perché i discografici si sono resi conto che quelli con il DRM non vendevano. Deve accadere lo stesso anche per i film. Basta dire no.

Se ne volete saperne di più sui DRM:

http://defectivebydesign.org/

La MPAA (Motion Picture Association of America) ha deciso che The Spirit sarà un film PG-13, ossia vietato ai minori di tredici anni non accompagnati dai genitori. La restrizione è ovviamente circoscritta al territorio statunitense.

Questa la motivazione: for intense sequences of stylized violence and action, some sexual content and brief nudity, ossia "per le intense scene di violenza e azione stilizzate, alcuni contenuti sessuali e un po' di nudo".

Sicuramente in Italia il film non avrà alcuna censura.

Orbene, nonostante la battaglia delle Major su questo fronte, la società RealNetworks, che da sempre è in prima fila proprio per studiare e realizzare sistemi di protezione dei DVD messi in commercio dalle case di produzione cinematografica, ha deciso di fare il “salto della barricata” e di proporre uno strumento, il programma RealDVD, che garantisce agli utenti di poter realizzare la copia di qualsiasi DVD (naturalmente le indicazioni del prodotto raccomandano di farlo solo per uso strettamente personale), anche quelli che possiedono i sistemi di DRM per la protezione dalla duplicazione. Una contraddizione che parrebbe strana, se non fosse che da quando il mercato del “ripping” è diventato più vasto di quello dell’home video, era abbastanza logico che le società di software specializzate in questo settore, si mettessero al lavoro per venire incontro alle esigenze non solo di chi produrre, ma anche di chi usufruisce di contenuti video.

L’Associazione delle case di produzione cinematografica americana, la MPAA (Motion Picture Association of America), che vede fra i suoi iscritti colossi del calibro della Warner Bros, 20th Century Fox, Sony Pictures, NBC Universal, Paramount, Disney e molti altri, non potendo tollerare un atteggiamento di questo genere da parte del “traditore” RealNetworks, ha immediatamente fatto sapere che ricorrerà a vie legali per fermare l’uscita sul mercato di RealDVD. Da parte sua, RealNetworks ha sfoderato le unghie, affermando di essere pronta a sfidare i giganti in tribunale, per dimostrare che il loro prodotto non solo è in linea con le richieste del mercato e quindi degli utenti, ma anche con le nuove frontiere della tecnologia digitale, a cui i colossi di Hollywood (sempre secondo RealNetworks) dovrebbero adeguarsi il prima possibile.

Ma qual è il segreto di questo RealDVD che incute tanto terrore alle Major cinematografiche? E’ presto detto: anziché scardinare il sistema DRM di protezione dalla copia, questo software lo aggira, aggiungendo uno strato ulteriore alla codifica del DVD capace di “coprire” i codici di sicurezza del DRM. Uno stratagemma tanto semplice quanto efficace, che non poteva che venire da chi ha contribuito in maniera determinante alla creazione dei sistemi di blindatura delle copie di film in DVD.

Adesso restiamo ad aspettare i passi della macchina legale americana, che si faranno sentire presto, vista l’importanza e la spettacolarità del caso.

www.fiction-tv.it

www.cartoonmag.org

www.magmovie.org

]]> http://modernmystique.wordpress.com/?p=31 Sat, 04 Oct 2008 22:32:57 +0000 modernmystique http://modernmystique.sv.wordpress.com/2008/10/04/a-taste-of-sensuality/ I felt I'd dive right into a topic that's becoming become less forbidden and pushed on people of increasingly younger ages. Sex is visible in almost all streams of the media, in the seductively toned advertisements that line highways, overpower magazine pages, and consume television commercials. Not only is sex infesting adverts from the inside out; movies have become less cautious as to who its viewers may be. The MPAA (Motion Picture Association of America) currently rates many movies conveniently at PG-13, not because the material contained within them are deemed acceptable for teens 13 and upwards to view, but because this is the generation that makes movie theatres, corporations, etc. the most profit, whereas placing these movies rightfully at an “R” rating would produce far less revenue. So morality is sacrificed for profit in other words. Now, rating a movie “R” obviously does not shield it from the eyes of those under the age of 17, when accompanied with someone over the age of 17, they’re allowed to view the movie in theatres. Yet according to MPAA’s definition of a PG-13 movie and the movies being rated as such there is a slight difference.

“A PG-13 motion picture may go beyond the PG rating in theme, violence, nudity, sensuality, language, adult activities or other elements, but does not reach the restricted R category. The theme of the motion picture by itself will not result in a rating greater than PG-13, although depictions of activities related to a mature theme may result in a restricted rating for the motion picture. Any drug use will initially require at least a PG-13 rating. More than brief nudity will require at least a PG-13 rating, but such nudity in a PG-13 rated motion picture generally will not be sexually oriented. There may be depictions of violence in a PG-13 movie, but generally not both realistic and extreme or persistent violence. A motion picture’s single use of one of the harsher sexually-derived words, though only as an expletive, initially requires at least a PG-13 rating. More than one such expletive requires an R rating, as must even one of those words used in a sexual context. The Rating Board nevertheless may rate such a motion picture PG-13 if, based on a special vote by a two-thirds majority, the Raters feel that most American parents would believe that a PG-13 rating is appropriate because of the context or manner in which the words are used or because the use of those words in the motion picture is inconspicuous.” Oddly, no members of the MPAA are known by the general public and multiple attempts/investigations have been made in order to retrieve this information to determine who exactly is deciding and representing what the “majority of American parents” think is appropriate. The MPAAs wording of this definition leaves a very liberal gap as to what can allowedly be rated PG-13.  Obviously since rating a movie as PG-13 brings more profit, it is found that currently many movies are being rated as such, even though many parents may believe differently. Obviously the MPAA rates movies that would sharply contradict their stated definition, but finagle a great deal of movies into theatres and sales as PG-13. Much blame can be placed on the MPAA, but parents must also realize that responsibility needs to be involved in determining what movies are appropriate even if ratings are misleading. So as movie corporations make more revenue by disregarding the slightly more mature material being released to young teens these generations are becoming adjusted to the mentality that the content of these films are acceptable to regenerate in daily life. This is not to say that there are many other influences, this is but a piece to the current statistics of a sharp up rise in teen pregnancy, sexually transmitted diseases, violence, etc. But it’s not to also say that this is not a portion of the problem and debates have recently arisen as to what’s to be done. It’s an issue that is less grounded on certain sides of the political spectrum and more relatable to where people stand on morality or lack thereof and its respective effects on trends in teen life. Sex is of course a much needed part of education, but when it’s pressed on teens that are particularly impressionable at the ages of 12-17, there is a great deal of confusion as to what’s acceptable and eventually many teens begin to believe that the stories they view on television and in movies are acceptable. Parenting is at part to blame, but these industries must also be held partially accountable.

I personally am against censorship and feel that the answer does not lie in that course of action. Instead I feel that a much more strict rating system be used in order to ensure that the material in movies are entirely suitable for the age group attending those movies. A movie should not be chopped apart in order to become an “R” rated movie, but simply be rated NC-17, and the same goes for PG-13. The difficultly comes in the fact that this control is not in the people’s hands but instead on a committee of people whose salaries more or less depend on revenues obtained from the movies they rate. The studios under the MPAA are Disney, Sony Pictures, Paramount Pictures, 20^thCentury Fox, Universal Studios, and Warner Bros. It has formed a monopoly over American media and determines much of the content watched for certain age groups. They’ve been under investigation for their policies on rating as well as its actual members. The MPAA has also been criticized for being more contented with violence than with sexuality. It should also be noted that there is obviously more bias towards homosexual content than heterosexual. The MPAA also routinely censors movies in order to reduce an NC-17 to R rating or an R to a PG-13 rating. Censorship should not occur in order to drive profits upwards.

Returning to advertising, there is a movement currently underway in order to portray more average people in advertising. Sex in advertising is everywhere, whether it’s outright or completely subliminal. Sultry models, shirtless men, exposed cleavage, skimpily dressed women; passionate embraces, etc. are just a few of advertising company’s ploys in order to gain attention to their product. This not only gains the attention wanted but also begins to redefine the “average” person and consistently makes people, particularly teens rethink their bodies, style, and sometimes personality.  This influence that’s arising from advertising is showing growing trends in anorexia and other eating disorders and again a more careless look at sex in general. Although this is much more subliminal than the obvious content of movies and can’t exactly be cured by a more stringent rating system, there are alternatives to what is currently being fed to the public. The styles presented by companies must be represented by models that portray an air of responsibility, contrasted with current models whose lives are frequently plagued by drug use, eating disorders and partying. But again, it must also be partly a parent’s responsibility to explain that realistically the models in the pictures aren’t completely representative of the general population and that there is no need to strive in order to reach the look portrayed since it is usually obtained through irresponsible habits and sometimes disorders. A bigger emphasis needs to be put on individualistic beauty in order to encourage teens to be themselves instead of following all the trends depicted in various advertising outlets.

I feel that although these advertising campaigns do indeed rely on people following trends and purchasing a product simply because of the attractive model using it, that there is a degree of ignorance involved in purchasing a product through this influence. It truly isn’t that difficult to see through these ad campaigns and view the motives behind them. Granted children and teens might not make this connection as easily as adults, but when adults are able to be misled by these adverts as easily as teens then it’s obvious that the minds of the general public can be easily manipulated into certain views of products and trends. (I’ll discuss other uses of this influence in later entries.) It’s slightly pathetic that someone can believe that they can replicate a model if they purchase the jeans they’re wearing or buy the car they’re driving. Advertising companies are making profit from the general public’s ignorance. Not only are these submissively sexual advertisements influencing purchases but they are also influencing a degree of less cautious sensuality in teens that is leading 16 year olds attempting to imitate a 21 year old model. The question remains, is this an act of ignorance on the part of parents or can it all be blamed solely on increasingly sensual advertising?

I am not a utilitarian or consequentialist. So I don't accept the utilitarian premises - "promoting art, science etc" - that present intellectual property laws are based on (To see how dangerous utilitarianism is, just follow the comments on this post; what started out as a defense of capitalism soon became a full-fledged philosophical debate on capitalism vs. utilitarianism). But content owners find it useful because utilitarianism allows them to shift the goalposts in a manner of their choosing. These cases are examples of the pernicious side-effects of our present IPR regime.

The reason I began writing about it is this - MPAA's decision to sue RealNetworks on charges of anti-circumvention. This is in relation to Real's DVD copying software - RealDVD. The DMCA (and similar laws; India will have one pretty soon) is a pain in the a*** for every legitimate consumer; the "pirate" has it easy - why would someone who does not pay for a film or song or software bother about circumventing technological restrictions in the first place. For the consumer however, it restricts everything from reverse engineering to circumventing copy protection measures - even if you have paid for the DVD or audio CD and even if you want to do it for your personal use. In Real's case, the software creates a "carbon copy" of the DVD on your hard disk (including the CSS protection), downloads information relevant to the film (consider it similar to album art and tagging your music), and allows you to skip directly to the start of the film. But the MPAA is pissed off because the software thus allows people to watch their movies in a manner of their choosing, without having to lug DVDs around, and frees them from having to find and insert the DVD into the optical drive every time - the MPAA wants to prevent the mp3-ization of films. Real will probably win this case on a technicality - its accepting the DVD CCA agreement did not include the acceptance of the requirement that the DVD be physically present in the drive. But as Ars Technica suggests-

DVD CCA has attempted to modify the CSS License to include the physical DVD requirement, but so far has been unable to pass it. Should it do so, however, the change would apparently affect current licensees, such as Real and Kaleidescape.

According to DVD CCA, "Every CSS Licensee who signs the CSS License specifically acknowledges and agrees the CSS Specifications 'may be amended from time to time in accordance with the DVD CCA Bylaws.' In addition, every CSS Licensee agrees it will be bound by such amendments and it must comply with such amendments within the time limits set forth in the CSS License."

In other words, whatever the legal wrangling finally concludes about the current CSS license, that license can be changed by a DVD CCA vote, and the whole issue becomes moot.

So much for not inconveniencing your customer.

Windows users might not see the DVD Copy Control Association and its $10,000 license as a problem - every DVD player/ writer comes bundled with a "basic" DVD player software whose developer has received a license from the DVD CCA. But the Open Source Community, and hence Linux users, do have one because the terms of the DVD CCA license make it impossible to create a "legal" open source DVD playback application. Some open source applications like VLC Media Player have chosen libdvdcss to circumvent both copy protection as well as the absolutely irritating region code lock. But using such software depends on where you stay and what risks you are willing to take - just because people have not being prosecuted does not mean they will not be. The issue is so important that it is the subject of vitriolic as well as philosophical discussions - see this and this.

DVD-Audio is another example of the short sightedness of content owners. It is superior to audio cds as far as quality is concerned. But the only time I bought one, I found that I either had to purchase a dedicated DVD-Audio player, or be resigned to listening to cd-like stereo quality sound, albeit at 48,000kHz. No ripping software was available - that changed with DVD Audio Explorer, but its still on the murky side. The lesson I learnt - stay away from DVD-A and stick to CDs.

I don't deny every content creator's absolute right to control the monetization of his work. But the question is, in the real world, how much is too much as far as IP enforcement goes. Michael Crichton sounds a warning about taking IPR to extremes, particularly with reference to the dangers of gene patenting (something he covers in his book - Next)-

Stop gene patenting. Gene patents might have looked reasonable 20 years ago but the field has changed since in ways nobody could have predicted. And we have plenty of evidence that today, gene patents are bad practice, harmful and dangerous. End the practice now.

In saying this, I remind you that I am an intellectual property veteran. For forty years I have made my living from IP—selling it, licensing it, litigating it, negotiating it. I've lived through generations of change in IP agreements caused by changing technology in my particular areas. I've been to court over IP more than once (and I always win.) But I viscerally understand that IP creators need to protect their work and to make a profit.

But let me report the single deep truth about intellectual property that I learned in my life working in this area. The single truth is this---an IP worker will take possession of everything he can get. Everything.

Of course I copyright Jurassic Park. But if I could copyright all dinosaur stories on an island, I would. If I could copyright all rampaging animal stories, I would. I will take everything I can get. It’s just common sense.

Jumping from copyright to gene patents is jumping a bit too far, but all I can say is I hope governments and content owners come to their senses sooner rather than later. If wishes were horses...

What you see above, thanks to the steadfast picture-taking abilities of the talented Fred B, is perhaps the most awesome picture ever taken in the history of the Free Culture movement. It’s Henrik Moltke and Fritz Attaway, respectively co-director of the fantastic documentary Good Copy Bad Copy and vice-president of the MPAA, shaking hands after a screening.

Totally brilliant. And, as Fred points out on the picture’s Flickr entry — Fritz’s smile totally covers the fact that he’s suing students around the country up the wazoo. But, I think the image points to another thing. Was at the Berkman Center’s conference on the US vs. Microsoft antitrust case 10 years later — which featured journalists, lawyers, and people who worked on both sides of the case. But, the weird thing was, everyone was having a good laugh. The whole room was like a high school reunion, where the jocks jovially hang with the nerds and both recall fondly the time when they tried to destroy one another. Everyone understood the roles they had to play, and, as one attendee described it, it was like all those old cartoons with Sam Sheepdog and Ralph Wolf where they genially greet each other before a day of epic conflict. This is a long way of saying: Free Culture has largely become cozy with the roles everyone expects it to play, and has been fighting the exact same fight for way too long. True: we’re wrongly pigeonholed as “just being about upper-middle class kids downloading music illegally,” but I don’t think it’s hard to see why people might think that, given the kinds of national campaigns that have dominated our activity for the past few years.

Read the rest of this story...

When it comes to Internet Service Providers (ISPs), I have been hearing a lot of bad things about Comcast. I don't like how they throttle bit torrent traffic, but it has never effected me personally because Comcast is not my ISP, Cox is. I am now hearing that Cox is taking its own steps to combat piracy. The steps that Cox is taking takes the fight against piracy to a whole new level that I am not comfortable with. In an article I read on TorrentFreak.com, I found out that, like every other ISP, Cox recieves plenty of copyright related takedown notices. However, instead of forwarding these notices to those customers in question, Cox takes it upon themselves to disconnect the alleged "pirate" from the Internet. Once this happens, a message will be displayed in the browser window stating that under the Digital Millenium Copyright Act, they have the responsibility to disable the offenders Internet access. Cox is wrong in stating this because, as the article says, the DMCA does not oblige them to terminate anyone's Internet access. In fact, doing what they do can easily lead to corruption on the part of the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) and the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA). If either of these organizations suspects someone of piracy, all they have to do is send out the notice and, if the person in question is unfortunate enough to be subscribed to Cox,  his or her access to the Internet will be shut off. Said person could in fact be completely innocent and, because of this system, suddenly find out that he is a suspected criminal. In such a case, all the person has to do is call up Cox and explain the situation, afterwhich his Internet connection will be reinstated. Still, without proper evidence it is wrong for Cox to deny someone access to the Internet.

More Info: http://torrentfreak.com/cox-disconnects-alleged-pirates-from-the-internet-080930/

So yes its a drm post, but why should Cisco and evil chair throwing Microsoft get a mention ? well easy for things you get for free* like film trailers Microsoft and Cisco want to charge you Microsoft users for them.

Why ? well Seinfeild and co dont come cheap and there concept of pollution contains some outrageous terms.

Here's the problem - the internet is not tv, nor is it radio, yes those things can be be sent via it but not all of us use the internet to watch crap tv and corporate sounds. if pollution means that you have pay to watch youtube what would be your response ?

Beware for when you next upgrade windows - unless you pay for video and sound every time Microsoft (Steve Balmer,Bill Gates, and Seinfeld) consider you evil.

As to cisco I am not surprised to see them here. Cisco are evil and just a brand name i suggest that there's more to life than cisco routers and stuff, so don't buy cisco after all when the counterfeiters can steal designs, boxes [all made in china] and ship them to cisco resellers who don't know there counterfeited then perhaps they should do something else first

Pollution is an ambiguous term, i could argue that any Microsoft os causes more more pollution problems than they solve. To remove problem - just remove Microsoft workstations for the internet - problem solved.

The internet is not tv, or is it a platform to promote only one awful corporate singer who forget to wear panties while getting out of car [adjust your google settings], it is a means communication that both tv and radio fail to understand and wish to make there own.  Beware of the nazis, shaved or otherwise.

* paid for via an internet connection.

1 . Video On Demand

2 . The MPAA

3. Hollywood Squeezing Theaters for Every Dime

4. Ads in Front of Movies

5. Double-Dipping DVDs

I couldn't agree more. To me it has come to the point that unless someone invites me, or if the movie truly warrants being seen on the big screen (meaning spectacles ala Dark Knight) I won't watch it in theaters.

I'd rather wait for the DVD/Blu-ray to come out (the gap between box-office and disc release just keeps getting smaller) and watch it in the comfort of my own home on my couch, in front of my 42inch LCD without having to pay through the nose for crappy popcorn and soda's, without having to endure the other people in the theatre and without being forced to watch 15 min. of ads. I can't wait for the day when movies will be released in theaters and on DVD on the same day.

Not to mention the rating system which is in all fairness more of a problem in the U.S. than in Europe. We're not afraid of nipples.

Well, in the case of the RealDVD software, they haven't actually "broken" the CSS encryption. Instead, RealDVD copies the entire DVD (including the encryption) to a hard drive and then the content is played through a licensed player (presumably RealPlayer). However, the MPAA's perspective is that this allows users to "Rent, rip and return" - building their libraries by simply renting movies from their local Blockbuster.

I guess the question is whether or not RealDVD is exploiting a legal loophole or on strong legal footing. Again, I ask can a software manufacturer be held accountable for the (potential) actions of its user group?

In talking to people since OiNK, one of the most popular private BitTorrent trackers, was shut down by police a year ago, I've come to suspect something. In particular, that a combination of more stringent measures to deter torrents as well as the loss of perhaps the most well-run tracker on the internet was causing people to turn to alternative methods of file-sharing. Well, it looks like I may have been on to something.

ars technica reported earlier today that not only is P2P traffic slowing down, accounting for a lower percentage of overall internet traffic than it used to, but DDL (Direct Download) services like Rapidshare and Mediafire are growing at a stunning rate. DDL allows people to simply download a file stored at one location by clicking on it - that's it. There's no sharing involved, no having to reassemble pieces of downloaded files, no having to wait for seeders - it's just there for the taking, plus it's often very fast. And, of course, there's one major allure.

Unlike with P2P traffic, investigators can't easily grab the IP addresses of those downloading DDL files, and they can't grab copies of the files themselves in order to look for copyright infringement.

P2P, despite the ire directed against it by content owners, at least allows them a window into online behavior. DDL services close the window and plaster over it, and only a sledgehammer from a subpoena (or the cooperation of an ISP) can open it back up. 

I'd be really curious to see the first case where the RIAA or MPAA tries to sue someone for downloading from a DDL service. Not only is it difficult to locate IP addresses of people downloading off DDL and acquire "evidence" (since you're not sharing, they can't download your files as evidence of wrongdoing), but these DDL services have legitimate uses at heart; they're really file transfer sites. To try to restrict DDL traffic in the same way that ISPs do with torrents by throttling their customers would cause many legitimate transfers to be disrupted. It's like opening and examining everybody's mail simply because there's the possibility of something illegal being sent.

BitTorrent is far from dead, of course, as it's still the preferred file sharing method for millions. However, this is just the latest example of the file sharing hydra staying ahead of the game. The loss of OiNK and the sudden uncertainty surrounding private BitTorrent trackers has caused some to take the next step and look for something that will take the authorities even longer to crack.

Once they figure out it exists, that is.

P2P growth slowing as infringement goes deeper undercover [ars technica]

Real, however, appears to have beaten them to the punch. Earlier this morning the company issued a press release saying that, "In response to threats made by the major movie studios," it was filing suit, asking a court to rule that RealDVD "fully complies with the DVD Copy Control Association's license agreement."

The MPAA claims that the Content Scramble System built into DVDs that prevents illicit copying and distribution is being circumvented. Someone could rent a movie, rip it to their hard drive and return the disc without purchasing the content, the organization alleges. It's seeking a temporary restraining order to stop Real from selling RealDVD, which went on sale this morning for $30, as well as unspecified damages.

Real refutes the MPAA's claims that RealDVD enables illegal distribution of content, saying that the added layer of encryption the service provides locks content to a particular computer. Additionally, the company says that the software is legal because it does not alter or compress the original file.

The MPAA hopes the judge will make a decision on the restraining order today or tomorrow.

But as Harry pointed out bright and early this morning, Real has landed the first punch. The company is filing an action for declaratory judgement (see here for a definition) that asks the court to find that Real's software is in compliance with the DVD Copy Control Association's license agreement.

Real points out that it maintains some type of digital rights management when ripping the discs. Ripped files can only be played on computers owned by the copier. This would effectively prevent the file from being usable for those wishing to share it over P2P networks.

In its statement, Real points out the Kaleidescape case, where the DVD Copy Control Association sued the company for its ripping software, which allows entertainment enthusiasts to store their media content on a central home media server. Kaleidescape prevailed in that case.

Real argues that the legal action is intended to protect consumers.

"RealNetworks took this legal action to protect consumers' ability to exercise their fair-use rights for their purchased DVDs ... we are disappointed that the movie industry is following in the footsteps of the music industry and trying to shut down advances in technology rather than embracing changes that provide consumers with more value and flexibility for their purchases."

For those of us who don't care much for the strong-arm tactics of the entertainment industry when it comes to copyright, this can be seen as nothing but good news. I give the early edge to Real on this, who is obviously taking every reasonable step to prevent illicit use of its software. What more does the MPAA expect?

"Max Payne" a live action film adapted from the hit video game was originally rated R by the MPAA, but the film's director John Moore fought against the MPAA in court to get the rating that he wanted for the film, which is "PG-13". John Moore successfully won the battle and was awarded the "PG-13" rating.

He is also working on a "Gamer Dedicated Cut" of the film for the die hard fans of the video games.

More on it here:

http://www.shacknews.com/onearticle.x/54925

Max Payne looks like a pretty sweet movie. I'm probably gonna go see it. I hope it's better than "Hitman".

Kev

Никога не съм крил, че съм огромен фен и на двете игри от поредицата Max Payne. Точно за това, идеята за филм по играта, едновременно ме радва и притеснява. Причината за това е очевидна. Радвам се, защото игрите са страхотни, и имат перфектна история, от която може да стане страхотен филм. Притеснявам се, защото филмите по игри по дефаут са много глупави.
Изписал съм много за задаващият се филм (клик), и въпреки всички материали който видях, и който ясно намекват, че филма ще остане верен на играта не бях 100% убеден... До сега.

Гледайте:
[vodpod id=Groupvideo.1604284&w=425&h=350&fv=]

Повярвайте ми, туко що търпението ми се изчерпа, а хайп левъла скочи до тавана, и просто не знам как ще изкарам до 17.10.2008 (премиерата на филма).

В този ред на мисли, още няколко неща за филма. В началото на септември Джон Мур (режисьор на филма), хвърляше огън и жупел срещу Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) които дадоха на филма R рейтинг (повече за рейтингите тук). Основната причина за недоволството на Мур, беше факта, че MPAA дадоха рейтинг PG-13 на The Dark Knight т.е филма не е подходящ за лица под 13 години, а за Max Payne рейтингът беше 17+. Както би следвало да се досетите, това не е особено добре, и би се отразило доста неприятно на Бокс офис представянето на филма. Според режисьора, на въпроса защо на филма е даден "R" рейтинг MPAA са отговорили, че просто филма изглеждал мрачен, и чувствали, че тряба да му дадат 17+. Думите на Мур, бяха повече от ясни, и точно за това ще ви ги цитирам дословно:

“The Motion Picture Association of America gave The Dark Knight a PG-13 rating and basically sucked Warner Bros.’ cock.”

В общи линии, цялото интервю е доста интересно, и желаещите могат да го прочетат тук - dasgamer.com. Добрата новина обаче, дойде преди няколко дни, когато gamedaily.com, съобщиха, че битката е приключила с това MPAA да променят решението си, и да дадат PG-13 на филма. Мур казва, че са нанесли съвсем малки промени, и дори твърди, че "това ще е най-сполучливият филм, базиран на игра, който някога ще гледаме" :)

Също така, става ясно, че DVD-то на филма ще съдържа и екстра матрЯл, специално за феновете на играта :)

Цялото интервю е тук, а аз наистина нямам търпение!

Ако имате желание, можете да гласувате за този материал тук. 10х

EDIT: Този трейлър, не знам как съм го пропуснал:
[vodpod id=Groupvideo.1604765&w=425&h=350&fv=file%3Dhttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.worstpreviews.com%2Ftrailers%2Fmaxpayne_trailer3.flv%26width%3D500%26height%3D315%26autostart%3Dfalse%26allowscriptaccess%3D]

"The movie ratings system is a voluntary system operated by the MPAA and the National Association of Theater Owners (NATO). The ratings are given by a board of parents who comprise the Classification and Rating Administration (CARA). CARA?s Board members view each film and, after a group discussion, vote on its rating. The ratings are intended to provide parents with advance information so they can decide for themselves which films are appropriate for viewing by their own children. The Board uses the same criteria as any parent making a judgment ? theme, language, violence, nudity, sex and drug use are among content areas considered in the decision-making process."
--MPAA

What are American parents trying to say about violence over sex when voting for the rating of movies after they watch them? Perhaps after allowing their kids more aggressive, angry, vindictive violence for entertainment purposes they will think of violence as wrong! Maybe? Are you sure? That's what I thought. Allowing fewer sex scenes and more violence may lead viewers to subconsciously think that violence is prefered over sex.

Personally, at my young age, I could tell you a few results of what parents let their kids watch. My fellow peers have to go to anger management meetings every week. A lot of them deny having anger issues but are less popular and seldom have friends. There are kids who make fun of others, bullying, teasing, downright attacking verbally others' because they have no other release. Had sex not been shunned by our society, we might be a bit more peaceful. If there were more sex scenes in movies it would be easier for parents to have the "big talk" with their kids. Sex releases hormones that no other activity can compensate for. These hormones bring a sense of happiness. What I get from this is that, on average, America would be happier with more sex scenes in movies.

Parents will be able to talk more easily with their kids. Teens will know more about the gritty details of sex: STDs do exist, pregnancy is possible, sex isn't bad. Violence may take a nose dive in society. Really, MPAA? How is it that gorey torture is worse that a few naked people enjoying themselves in a humane manner?

It's no secret that the Recording Industry Association of America has struggled in dealing with the way the internet has changed piracy in the past decade. With release dates essentially rendered meaningless by pre-release leaks and sales plummeting across the board, the RIAA, as well as the Motion Picture Association of America, have taken a variety of legal measures to fight back. At best, they and their associates have succeeded in shutting down some private bit torrent trackers and sending some administrators to jail. At worst, their increasingly ruthless tactics haven't won them much public sympathy and have contributed to an overall idea that the soulless corporations deserve to be stolen from.

The subject of videogame piracy, however, has come into the spotlight in the past couple days with the news that Activision-Blizzard, publishers of Guitar Hero and World of Warcraft, have been quietly involved in lawsuits for the past year with people who pirated their games, using tactics almost identical to the RIAA. So far, Activision-Blizzard has brought legal action against six people, settling with five of them while one case is still active.

I personally am not a big fan of slash-and-burn tactics to punish file-sharers. There are many reasons for this, not the least of which that the punishment is often wildly disproportionate to the crime. If you look at the above link to the Activision case, for instance, you'll notice that of the five cases that were settled, three people agreed to pay Activision-Blizzard $100,000, one paid $25,000, and one paid $1,000. And only one of these people had an attorney.

Activision-Blizzard, the movie studios and the record companies go after people with exorbitant settlements in order to make an example and discourage future piracy. And it's legitimate to argue that these companies lose a ton of money on piracy every year and they're only trying to protect their livelihood any way they can.

But as usual, the internet complicates things. While the internet makes piracy much easier for Joe Sixpack, it also completely changes the dimensions of what piracy is. Before the internet, piracy was people hawking bootlegs on the street or selling VHS copies of movies they rented from Blockbuster or videotaped in a theater. And to a large degree, on-the-street piracy still exists. But one of the advantages of on-the-street piracy is that it's far easier for money to change hands. On the internet, however, it's much easier to track transactions. PayPal is the closest thing to giving someone cash on the internet, but that can be tracked as well.

For this reason, internet piracy is a largely profitless endeavor. There are shady foreign sites that sell MP3s for a penny, but there are far more free torrent sites. Not only that, but otherwise legitimate file-sharing services like rapidshare, megaupload, YouSendIt, Sendspace and Mediafire are often used to trade pirated material - with no money changing hands.

More importantly, people don't upload for financial gain; if anything they do it to improve their online reputation. But if someone is profiting off of internet piracy, they tend to be even easier to track down and will get slammed legally. This is at odds with what a lot of these companies argue in these cases, which is that their financial livelihood is at stake because of all the money they're losing. If we take some numbers from the recent Spore controversy, for instance, we see that the game was illegally downloaded 171,000 times in 10 days after it leaked. Assuming copies cost $50 each, that's a multi-million dollar loss. Right?

Not exactly. This is where the internet really makes things tricky. As much as the media companies argue that bit torrent sites charge people for downloads (I've never heard of one that does), that's not the case. There isn't an illegal site out there selling copies of Spore for 50 bucks each. The money that would have been spent buying a copy of Spore from EA's website, Best Buy or Gamestop isn't going in some pirate's pocket instead - it's not going anywhere.

The net result, in fact, is that more product is being created with no profit generated for anyone. Without the argument of direct loss of money to sustain them, media companies often turn to the "potential sale" argument - and this is the slipperiest slope of all.

A "potential sale" is exactly what it sounds like - the idea that the person selling the product lost out on money that a pirate would have paid had they bought it. What's problematic about this is it brings intent into the argument over piracy, and it's something that's extremely difficult, if not impossible to prove. How do you prove someone would have bought something had they not downloaded it for free? Isn't it just as likely that they downloaded something because it was interesting, but not interesting enough for them to fork out 50 dollars? In that case, the person likely wouldn't have bought the product anyway - so how can you then argue that you lost a potential sale?

But in the end, companies like Activision-Blizzard sue random downloaders simply to scare people into buying their products. As you can tell by five of the six people in the Activision cases not having attorneys, they didn't exactly have the money to compete with Activision-Blizzard and were essentially forced to settle rather than face even more mountainous financial penalties. It's a crystal clear case of the threat of lawsuit being just as effective, if not more so, than an actual one. While anti-piracy advocates won a victory in the aforementioned case about the single mother, the "potential sale" argument was not trotted out, simply because the woman denied downloading the files in the first place. Had the RIAA made this argument, it would've been interesting to see the reaction of the judge and jury.

The implications of all of these cases are eye-popping. In essence, especially in today's economic climate, the people in the Activision case may just find themselves homeless because they downloaded a copy of Call of Duty 3.

You may be the staunchest anti-piracy advocate in the world, but you can't tell me that that isn't the legal equivalent of nuking an anthill.

Pirating games may get you in as much legal trouble as exchanging music on peer-to-peer networks. Two gaming sites have uncovered evidence that Activision is going around suing pirates, taking an aggressive, case-by-case approach much like the RIAA and MPAA.

According to a report by Edge Online, Activision has sued a New York resident for allegedly copying Call of Duty 3 for the Xbox 360 and other, unnamed games. Activision seeks $30,000 to $150,000 in damages "for each infringement of each copyrighted videogame." After looking into the issue, GamePolitics uncovered six other instances of piracy-related Activision lawsuits. Settlements in those cases ranged from $1,000 to $100,000, the site says, adding that five of the six defendants lacked representation.

Why haven't more tongues been wagging about these cases? Apparently, the settlements forbid defendants from making "any public statements that are inconsistent with any term of this Stipulation to Judgment and Permanent Injunction." GamePolitics points out that the clause "would make anyone think twice about discussing the case."

Of course, we're not entirely surprised to see members of the gaming industry getting litigious. Since last year, several high-profile game studios like Epic Games, id Software, Crytek, and Infinity Ward have sounded off about game piracy on the PC. Strangely, however, all of the aforementioned lawsuits seem to have been about console games. (Thanks to Shacknews for the tip.)

Update: The lawsuits may not be related to file sharing. GamePolitics has received a message from one of Activision's attorneys, who says his law firm has "never filed any litigation against a file-sharer on behalf of Activision."