Crazy Coincidence, Plagiarism, Or An Obvious Idea For An Electric Car Ad?
DailyDirt: Artificial And Augmented Senses

Entertainment Industry's Coordinated Effort To Blame Third Parties Taking Shape

Copyright

from the they're-everywhere dept

Mon, Sep 19th 2011 3:57pm — Mike Masnick
We've noted that the entertainment industry lobbyists (driven mainly by the MPAA and the RIAA) are pretty good at having a fairly global strategy when it comes to implementing the next bad idea. Whenever they support something, you quickly see something similar pop up around the globe -- sometimes with slight variations, which often allow them to test the waters to see how far they can go, in order to later use any such successes to convince other countries to go even further. It's why you saw copyright extension show up around the globe, it's why three strikes showed up around the globe... and now it's why blaming third parties and making them liable for copyright infringement is showing up around the globe. In the US, it's the PROTECT IP Act, which puts an astounding burden on third party tech companies -- namely "information location tools," payment processors and ad firms -- in an effort to make them cut off those accused (not found guilty) of copyright infringement. And, we just noted that efforts are underway for something similar in the UK.

However, over in the Netherlands, they're trying something slightly different. The anti-piracy group BREIN, which apparently gets plenty of funding from the MPAA, is simply going to start suing such third parties. BREIN has announced that it will sue third party payment processors if they don't cancel accounts associated with those accused of copyright infringement. Notice that in this case, they're not talking about a new law, but using existing laws to put liability on such third parties. It's an impressive strategy effort by old Hollywood, but it suffers the same fatal flaw as its other plans. Nothing in this will make anyone want to buy. And, at the same time, the risk of getting a false positive is pretty high. But that's apparently a small price to pay for thinking you're stopping infringement.
Hide this

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: entertainment industry, netherlands, payment processors, third party liability

105 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 19 Sep 2011 @ 4:12pm

    Funny. Mastercard supports the Protect IP Act. And the other payment processors seem poised to follow suit. Like the banks understand their corporate responsibility in combatting money laundering, payment processors also understand that they have a responsibility not to be enablers of infringement and counterfeiting. The concept has already been accepted by them, it's just a few of the details that need to be worked out. Then they will join the growing number of voices in supporting the bill.

    And by the way, the payment processors already maintain a vast database of entities that they won't process for. The infrastructure is already in place. So much for your laughable, "astounding burden".

    [ link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 19 Sep 2011 @ 4:20pm

      Re:

      Won't make a dent in acts of global copyright infringement.

      [ link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Bas Grasmayer (profile), 19 Sep 2011 @ 4:22pm

      Re:

      And this part does not worry you?

      "in an effort to make them cut off those accused (not found guilty) of copyright infringement"

      [ link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        BeeAitch (profile), 19 Sep 2011 @ 7:20pm

        Re: Re:

        Worry? Nah, he probably came when he read the article...

        [ link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 19 Sep 2011 @ 8:20pm

        Re: Re:

        And this part does not worry you?

        "in an effort to make them cut off those accused (not found guilty) of copyright infringement"

        Do you not understand that an alleged pirate site has the same rights under Rule 65 of the Rules of Civil Procedure as any other civil litigant in the US? The law states that there has to be a good faith effort demonstrated to serve the website's owner. Problem is, these guys ignore DMCA takedown notices and don't answer summons. Then they thumb their noses as they're outside the reach of the US legal system. What is the rightsholder supposed to do? The rogue site owner has EVERY opportunity to come forward and defend himself before any order is served on a payment processor, ad network or search engine. But they won't because they know they're in violation of US law, so they hide.

        [ link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 19 Sep 2011 @ 9:00pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          Alleged rogue site owner.

          [ link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 20 Sep 2011 @ 12:28am

          Re: Re: Re:

          Who cares I can still rip HULU or any of the original web portals from the industry can't I?

          [ link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          Any Mouse (profile), 20 Sep 2011 @ 5:54am

          Re: Re: Re:

          If I lived in, say, Sweden? I'd thumb my nose at the US legal system, too. It is US law, not Earth Law. Please, grow up.

          [ link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          btr1701 (profile), 20 Sep 2011 @ 1:22pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          > The rogue site owner

          What exactly is a 'rogue site'? Either a site is legal or it isn't. If it's illegal, then prosecute and shut it down. If it isn't illegal, then it has violated no laws and shouldn't be subject to any sanction whatsoever.

          This whole 'rogue site' nonsense is nothing but a euphemism for 'a site that is doing stuff we don't like but not breaking any law, but we want to punish them anyway'.

          [ link to this | view in chronology ]

          • identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 20 Sep 2011 @ 3:34pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            What exactly is a 'rogue site'? Either a site is legal or it isn't. If it's illegal, then prosecute and shut it down. If it isn't illegal, then it has violated no laws and shouldn't be subject to any sanction whatsoever.

            A rogue site operates in violation of US law outside the reach of US law enforcement. That's why the proposed responses under Protect IP entail orders for US-based enablers to cease doing business with these guys.

            [ link to this | view in chronology ]

            • icon
              btr1701 (profile), 20 Sep 2011 @ 10:28pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              > A rogue site operates in violation of US law outside
              > the reach of US law enforcement.

              That would imply that US law applied worldwide and that every person in the world is obligated to follow US law.

              You can't violate a law if you're not subject to it in the first place.

              [ link to this | view in chronology ]

            • icon
              Jay (profile), 21 Sep 2011 @ 10:31am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              By the way, can you define "rogue site"?

              And do us all a favor, define "piracy?"

              Is "piracy" the mixing of culture in an unauthorized manner?

              Is a "rogue site" the website of those living outside of US law and not adhering to US lobbyist policies?

              [ link to this | view in chronology ]

          • identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 20 Sep 2011 @ 3:56pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            What exactly is a 'rogue site'? Either a site is legal or it isn't. If it's illegal, then prosecute and shut it down. If it isn't illegal, then it has violated no laws and shouldn't be subject to any sanction whatsoever.

            A rogue site operates in violation of US law outside the reach of US law enforcement. That's why the proposed responses under Protect IP entail orders for US-based enablers to cease doing business with these guys.

            [ link to this | view in chronology ]

          • icon
            techflaws.org (profile), 21 Sep 2011 @ 3:47am

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            "This whole 'rogue site' nonsense is nothing but a euphemism for 'a site that is doing stuff we don't like but not breaking any law, but we want to punish them anyway'."

            Why not try it? Euphemisms like "enemy combatants" worked for a while too.

            [ link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      abc gum, 19 Sep 2011 @ 4:50pm

      Re:

      "the banks understand their corporate responsibility"

      OMG ! That is too funny! ... You've out done yourself with this one. - The only problem is, I think you were serious.

      [ link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        BeeAitch (profile), 19 Sep 2011 @ 7:18pm

        Re: Re:

        My first thought:

        He used 'banks' and 'responsibility' in the same sentence.

        Fucking hilarious.

        [ link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 19 Sep 2011 @ 8:03pm

        Re: Re:

        "the banks understand their corporate responsibility"

        OMG ! That is too funny! ... You've out done yourself with this one. - The only problem is, I think you were serious.

        Nice out-of-context quoting. The full sentence was:

        "Like the banks understand their corporate responsibility in combatting money laundering, payment processors also understand that they have a responsibility not to be enablers of infringement and counterfeiting."

        Perhaps you'd like to back you bullshit up with a few well-researched citations about problems with American banks and money laundering. You'll note a strong correlation between the following acts and instances of money laundering by US banks:


        Bank Secrecy Act (1970)

        Established requirements for recordkeeping and reporting by private individuals, banks and other financial institutions
        Designed to help identify the source, volume, and movement of currency and other monetary instruments transported or transmitted into or out of the United States or deposited in financial institutions
        Required banks to (1) report cash transactions over $10,000 using the Currency Transaction Report; (2) properly identify persons conducting transactions; and (3) maintain a paper trail by keeping appropriate records of financial transactions

        Money Laundering Control Act (1986)

        Established money laundering as a federal crime
        Prohibited structuring transactions to evade CTR filings
        Introduced civil and criminal forfeiture for BSA violations
        Directed banks to establish and maintain procedures to ensure and monitor compliance with the reporting and recordkeeping requirements of the BSA

        Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988

        Expanded the definition of financial institution to include businesses such as car dealers and real estate closing personnel and required them to file reports on large currency transactions
        Required the verification of identity of purchasers of monetary instruments over $3,000

        Annunzio-Wylie Anti-Money Laundering Act (1992)

        Strengthened the sanctions for BSA violations
        Required Suspicious Activity Reports and eliminated previously used Criminal Referral Forms
        Required verification and recordkeeping for wire transfers
        Established the Bank Secrecy Act Advisory Group (BSAAG)

        Money Laundering Suppression Act (1994)

        Required banking agencies to review and enhance training, and develop anti-money laundering examination procedures
        Required banking agencies to review and enhance procedures for referring cases to appropriate law enforcement agencies
        Streamlined CTR exemption process
        Required each Money Services Business (MSB) to be registered by an owner or controlling person of the MSB
        Required every MSB to maintain a list of businesses authorized to act as agents in connection with the financial services offered by the MSB
        Made operating an unregistered MSB a federal crime
        Recommended that states adopt uniform laws applicable to MSBs
        Money Laundering and Financial Crimes Strategy Act (1998)

        Required banking agencies to develop anti-money laundering training for examiners
        Required the Department of the Treasury and other agencies to develop a National Money Laundering Strategy
        Created the High Intensity Money Laundering and Related Financial Crime Area (HIFCA) Task Forces to concentrate law enforcement efforts at the federal, state and local levels in zones where money laundering is prevalent. HIFCAs may be defined geographically or they can also be created to address money laundering in an industry sector, a financial institution, or group of financial institutions.

        Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools to Restrict, Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001 (USA PATRIOT Act)

        [Title III of the USA PATRIOT Act is referred to as the International Money Laundering Abatement and Financial Anti-Terrorism Act of 2001]
        Criminalized the financing of terrorism and augmented the existing BSA framework by strengthening customer identification procedures
        Prohibited financial institutions from engaging in business with foreign shell banks
        Required financial institutions to have due diligence procedures (and enhanced due diligence procedures for foreign correspondent and private banking accounts)
        Improved information sharing between financial institutions and the U.S. government by requiring government-institution information sharing and voluntary information sharing among financial institutions
        Expanded the anti-money laundering program requirements to all financial institutions
        Increased civil and criminal penalties for money laundering
        Provided the Secretary of the Treasury with the authority to impose "special measures" on jurisdictions, institutions, or transactions that are of "primary money laundering concern"
        Facilitated records access and required banks to respond to regulatory requests for information within 120 hours
        Required federal banking agencies to consider a bank's AML record when reviewing bank mergers, acquisitions, and other applications for business combinations

        Intelligence Reform & Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004

        Amended the BSA to require the Secretary of the Treasury to prescribe regulations requiring certain financial institutions to report cross-border electronic transmittals of funds, if the Secretary determines that such reporting is "reasonably necessary" to aid in the fight against money laundering and terrorist financing

        [ link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          abc gum, 19 Sep 2011 @ 8:13pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          tl:dr

          http://www.flickr.com/photos/stoller/2907411559/

          [ link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          The eejit (profile), 19 Sep 2011 @ 11:00pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          Dude, the banks in America were engaged in essentially widespread fraud, through such wonders as robosigning, muddling toxic assets with safe assets, foreclosing on the wrong properties (even ones where no mortgage was held for decades).

          And then, when the shit hit the fan, they ran to government and demanded a bailout, and after they got it, paid a political party in the US to demand small government and de-regulation.

          Yeah, they're really fucking corporately responsible.

          [ link to this | view in chronology ]

          • icon
            Jay (profile), 19 Sep 2011 @ 11:30pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            Small nitpick. Having researched the financial meltdown, it should be noted that the government's fake demand caused this in the first place.

            [ link to this | view in chronology ]

            • identicon
              abc gum, 20 Sep 2011 @ 4:17am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              "the government's fake demand caused this in the first place."

              Demand for what - unscrupulous bending of the rules or outright fraud?

              [ link to this | view in chronology ]

              • icon
                Jay (profile), 20 Sep 2011 @ 2:07pm

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                If you look into Freddie and Fannie, it's mainly how the government set them up to take loans from most investment banks.

                The rules were enacted by Congress and basically nothing has been done to repeal them, merely add more rules to the mix.

                Is it fraud? I don't think I have to answer that question.

                Remember, the first rule of economics is "People respond to incentives".

                The first rule of politics is "Ignore the first rule of economics".

                [ link to this | view in chronology ]

                • identicon
                  abc gum, 20 Sep 2011 @ 6:16pm

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                  You have overlooked a large portion of the banking BS which raised hell recently. There was rampant fraud and no one is being held accountable. Whether the government is complicit or not is rather immaterial at this point. I find it hard to believe that Congress ordered the fraudulent assessment of risk associated with the investments being hawked at the time. So, please save your apologies for someone who might care.

                  [ link to this | view in chronology ]

                  • icon
                    Jay (profile), 20 Sep 2011 @ 8:55pm

                    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                    No... Don't misunderstand me.

                    Most of the rules that caused the financial meltdown are still in place. Most of the problems of the housing bubble haven't been fixed.

                    The scary thing is, this may happen again, which should worry all of us.

                    [ link to this | view in chronology ]

                    • identicon
                      abc gum, 21 Sep 2011 @ 5:09am

                      Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                      "Most of the rules that caused the financial meltdown are still in place."

                      The removal of regulations (Glass–Steagall) rather than inclusion of allowance had a lot to do with it.

                      [ link to this | view in chronology ]

          • identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 20 Sep 2011 @ 6:06am

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            @Eejit

            The discussion and my point was limited to a strong positive correlation between a decrease of money laundering in the US, and banks cooperation in enforcement of money laundering laws. You are either incredibly stupid or simply have no rebuttal to the point and go off on a tangent over banks (many) other misdeeds.

            [ link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          techflaws.org (profile), 21 Sep 2011 @ 3:49am

          Re: Re: Re:

          Tl;dr.

          [ link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Grae (profile), 19 Sep 2011 @ 4:53pm

      Re:

      That's nice. What about "information location tools" and ad agencies?

      Also payment processors may already have the infrastructure for maintaining a list of "banned" entities; but assuming that there's no extra work & cost involved to setup access for the organizations that are going to handing out accusations of copyright infringement is naive. Unless you're going to cite some insider source at Mastercard/Visa/Paypal/etc that shows otherwise?

      [ link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 19 Sep 2011 @ 8:09pm

        Re: Re:

        That's nice. What about "information location tools" and ad agencies?

        Also payment processors may already have the infrastructure for maintaining a list of "banned" entities; but assuming that there's no extra work & cost involved to setup access for the organizations that are going to handing out accusations of copyright infringement is naive. Unless you're going to cite some insider source at Mastercard/Visa/Paypal/etc that shows otherwise?

        Information location tools are already blocking sites. Try finding child porn using one of them. Infrastructure is there.

        And none of these actions can unilaterally be enforced on the corporate enablers. First a rightsholder or US Attorney has to go before a judge and obtain a ruling that the website meets the definition of a rogue site (dedicated to infringing activity, no other commercial purpose) Then the rightsholder has to also obtain the judges permission to serve an order on the payment processor or ad network. Only the US Attorney can seek an order against a search engine (for now at least).

        [ link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          Any Mouse (profile), 19 Sep 2011 @ 8:29pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          +1 Trolls for bringing child porn into the discussion!

          [ link to this | view in chronology ]

          • identicon
            Larry, 19 Sep 2011 @ 8:56pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            +2 for advocating illegal activity. So, where can I find child porn that I CAN pay for idiot?

            [ link to this | view in chronology ]

            • identicon
              Anonymous Coward, 19 Sep 2011 @ 9:02pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              Sorry, only Media Executives and Politicians get the premium child porn. You'll have to do with the free samples

              [ link to this | view in chronology ]

            • icon
              Any Mouse (profile), 20 Sep 2011 @ 5:56am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              Ad hom. Where did I advocate anything? Moron. (See, I can call names, too.)

              [ link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Jay (profile), 19 Sep 2011 @ 5:03pm

      Re:

      Meanwhile, alternatives to banks become that much more evident as people begin not to trust banks with private information...

      [ link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 19 Sep 2011 @ 6:59pm

        Re: Re:

        Meanwhile, alternatives to banks become that much more evident as people begin not to trust banks with private information...

        Good luck with that. Hey, will you sell me your car for bitcoins?

        [ link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 20 Sep 2011 @ 12:01am

          Re: Re: Re:

          Bitcoins are better investiment than the Glenn Beck gold scam.

          [ link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 19 Sep 2011 @ 7:09pm

        Re: Re:

        Meanwhile, alternatives to banks become that much more evident as people begin not to trust banks with private information...

        Good luck with that. Hey, will you sell me your car for bitcoins?

        [ link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 19 Sep 2011 @ 7:14pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          I will, give me your name and address

          [ link to this | view in chronology ]

          • identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 19 Sep 2011 @ 8:43pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            will, give me your name and address

            Sorry, I'm making a Bitcoin play for Jay's vintage Yugo.

            [ link to this | view in chronology ]

            • identicon
              Anonymous Coward, 19 Sep 2011 @ 8:46pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              Hey, you didn't mention any names in your offer. A deal is a deal

              [ link to this | view in chronology ]

              • identicon
                Anonymous Coward, 19 Sep 2011 @ 9:12pm

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                Hey, you didn't mention any names in your offer. A deal is a deal

                Sorry. His has a Starfleet Academy window sticker and a "IMA CRE8R" custom license plate. I've gotta have a chick magnet like that.

                [ link to this | view in chronology ]

                • icon
                  The eejit (profile), 19 Sep 2011 @ 11:05pm

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                  Well, that'll be 100,000 DEMarks, please. Preferably made out of gold bullion.

                  [ link to this | view in chronology ]

                • icon
                  Jay (profile), 19 Sep 2011 @ 11:36pm

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                  Nah, hate trekking anyway. I wonder where the bitcoin reference came from? As if that were the only one.

                  [ link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      robin, 19 Sep 2011 @ 5:11pm

      Re:

      And by the way, the payment processors already maintain a vast database of entities that they won't process for.

      [ link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        robin, 19 Sep 2011 @ 5:14pm

        Re: Re:

        Don't know why it failed to print the rest of the post:

        Do you mean like those loving, compassionate folks over at the KKK? oh, wait, nevermind...

        bit.ly/gU94Aw

        Hypocrisy revealed, failure as a virtue.

        [ link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 19 Sep 2011 @ 11:53pm

      Re:

      Like the banks understand their corporate responsibility in combatting money laundering, payment processors also understand that they have a responsibility not to be enablers of infringement and counterfeiting.""

      Riiiiiiiight that is why American banks launder billions for the drugs cartels each year and the US government does nothing to stop the practice LoL
      http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-06-29/banks-financing-mexico-s-drug-cartels-admitted-in-well s-fargo-s-u-s-deal.html

      [ link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      anonymous, 20 Sep 2011 @ 12:35am

      Re:

      so money laundering has been stamped out then, has it? you must be as naive as you are brainless!

      [ link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 20 Sep 2011 @ 1:59am

      Re:

      Funny American Express is against it, I guess not all payment processors are onboard of your little scam.

      [ link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 20 Sep 2011 @ 6:19am

        Re: Re:

        Funny American Express is against it, I guess not all payment processors are onboard of your little scam.

        True. But in the political calculus of Washington, if one member of an industry supports a bill that politicians want to pass, then the objections of rest of the industry is largely ignored. When Amex goes to the Hill to whine what they hear is that Mastercard has the same business issues as you yet supports the bill. What's your problem Amex? Remember, this bill is also about counterfeit good and medicine. The payment processors don't give a shit about pirated movies versus bogus Viagra. So it's pretty tough for Amex to hold its position and facilitate the sale of dangerous medications, unsafe consumer goods (and pirated movies and music

        [ link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    AG Wright, 19 Sep 2011 @ 4:33pm

    What part of free do you not understand?

    Let's all face it. Nobody is making money from making torrents of movies and music available. It's made available by the users sharing over their internet connection.
    The web sites like ThePirateBay and others may make some money from advertising but it's not so much that it's over seas investments in any large way.

    [ link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 19 Sep 2011 @ 6:54pm

      Re: What part of free do you not understand?

      Let's all face it. Nobody is making money from making torrents of movies and music available.

      Perhaps you missed articles about Ninjavideo who reportedly made half a million dollars over three years. If you think that 90% of the infringing websites aren't in it for the money you are deluded.

      [ link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 19 Sep 2011 @ 7:13pm

        Re: Re: What part of free do you not understand?

        they made that much? Well it seems the entertainment distributors have no excuses now.

        [ link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        Jay (profile), 19 Sep 2011 @ 11:38pm

        Re: Re: What part of free do you not understand?

        The lies are strong with this one....

        [ link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 20 Sep 2011 @ 12:00am

        Re: Re: What part of free do you not understand?

        Yah because NinjaVideo was a giant and everybody got their stuff there right?

        Wake up, most private websites that are the ones that do that are not big, that are not many of them and are not the principal means that people use to pirate anything.

        [ link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        PaulT (profile), 20 Sep 2011 @ 12:41am

        Re: Re: What part of free do you not understand?

        Was that net or gross?

        [ link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        Richard (profile), 20 Sep 2011 @ 2:19am

        Re: Re: What part of free do you not understand?

        Perhaps you missed articles about Ninjavideo who reportedly made half a million dollars over three years.

        If you do the sums that just about amounts to "covered their expenses"

        [ link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        Josef Anvil (profile), 20 Sep 2011 @ 9:04am

        Re: Re: What part of free do you not understand?

        This is classic..... I love that AC pointed out Ninjavideo.

        "Perhaps you missed articles about Ninjavideo who reportedly made half a million dollars over three years. If you think that 90% of the infringing websites aren't in it for the money you are deluded."

        Let's look at that. They made half a million over 3 years, but it wasn't from anyone buying the content. In fact, if the nimrods in Hollywood made their own sites and offered the content behind a small paywall, the could probably make a mint in advertising dollars for offering a better service than the pirates and still not impact their box office sales.

        Now for the fun part. Ninjavideo is pretty typical as far as piracy sites go.

        Could someone please explain the connection between these pirate sites and organized crime / terrorism???????

        [ link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 19 Sep 2011 @ 4:33pm

    BREIN is one of the worst

    They have shill posting online on many sites for their smear campaigns.

    [ link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 19 Sep 2011 @ 4:47pm

    I really want to believe you're paranoid. I've been around long enough to know you're not Mike...but if I can't believe you're paranoid and there isn't actually a push for this it's, it's just depressing.

    [ link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 19 Sep 2011 @ 4:51pm

    This will have no effect whatever on piracy. The huge misconception that the copyright holders are trying to pass off is that piracy is making money off their products.

    Anyone that knows of piracy knows also that no money passes hands for such. You can not make an income off no money, no matter how it is turned around nor how many times it is said over and over. It doesn't change the facts.

    Where money does come in is for hosting services, domains, and the like. If you think for one minute those sites have their names plastered all over the place to send donations, you're living in a fool's paradise. Email addresses can be changed very easily. So can contact info.

    The smart sites don't advertise at all; as in not one ad or commercial.

    [ link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    out_of_the_blue, 19 Sep 2011 @ 5:33pm

    "Nothing in this will make anyone want to buy." -- So?

    "It's an impressive strategy effort by old Hollywood, but it suffers the same fatal flaw as its other plans."

    You've got yet another wrong notion or two here. Hollywood, or whoever, isn't much concerned with whether anyone /wants/ to buy, only in effectively forcing buying -- rather than some getting content for free. Let's assume a certain level of entertainment-watching (somewhere between a minimum of looking at the walls and a maximum of every waking moment). Then, IF the "free" content were cut off, Hollywood could expect a rise of paying customers in this entertainment-addicted culture.

    2nd, "old Hollywood" seems to be innovating on new uses of existing law -- and importantly as noted above -- of getting third-parties to cut off the funding mechanisms. At least TRY to remember those people are vitally interested in the problem, it's their income pipeline, they're going to make efforts to keep the gravy train running.

    By the way, "AG Wright": ALL pirate sites attempt to "monetize" infringing file-sharing; only a few small sites are paying for the privilege of putting up links. Sheesh.

    [ link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 19 Sep 2011 @ 5:49pm

      Re: "Nothing in this will make anyone want to buy." -- So?

      "old Hollywood" seems to be innovating on new uses of existing law."

      Well there's your problem, Hollywood has turned into Lawlywood.

      [ link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 19 Sep 2011 @ 11:58pm

        Re: Re: "Nothing in this will make anyone want to buy." -- So?

        More like LoLLywood.

        [ link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      abc gum, 19 Sep 2011 @ 6:16pm

      Re: "Nothing in this will make anyone want to buy." -- So?

      "isn't much concerned with whether anyone /wants/ to buy, only in effectively forcing buying"

      And they will force me how?


      "Let's assume a certain level of entertainment-watching"

      And herein lies your logic flaw


      "(somewhere between a minimum of looking at the walls and a maximum of every waking moment)"

      Yes, because there is nothing else to do all day long.

      [ link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        Lauriel (profile), 20 Sep 2011 @ 1:20am

        Re: Re: "Nothing in this will make anyone want to buy." -- So?

        [blockquote]And they will force me how?[/blockquote]

        I know! They'll force you to buy by taking away your means of.. umm.. payment..

        Oh. Never mind.

        [ link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      JMT (profile), 19 Sep 2011 @ 7:03pm

      Re: "Nothing in this will make anyone want to buy." -- So?

      "Hollywood, or whoever, isn't much concerned with whether anyone /wants/ to buy, only in effectively forcing buying -- rather than some getting content for free."

      You cannot force someone to buy music and movies, and you cannot legislate away what people want and what technology allows. With the current level of ill-will towards Big Content it's crazy to think we'd all just give in and go back to paying for shiny discs or, even dumber, paying shiny-disc prices for digital content that costs a fraction of the price of a disc to distribute. Perhaps if their anti-piracy efforts were matched with a genuine willingness to embrace new ways of providing content in ways that approach the convenience, portability and price of unauthorised sources (i.e. compete!), you might have a case. But they don't, so you don't.

      "At least TRY to remember those people are vitally interested in the problem, it's their income pipeline, they're going to make efforts to keep the gravy train running."

      It's a shame they completely fail to see that the gravy train has fallen off the rails and tipped all the gravy out. The only thing that gave Big Content their power over the people for a few decades was the level of technology available to consumers. Current and future technology will never allow them to go back to the old days. The legacy players have to find a new source of income or they will inevitably be replaced by those who have.

      [ link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 19 Sep 2011 @ 8:52pm

        Re: Re: "Nothing in this will make anyone want to buy." -- So?

        You cannot force someone to buy music and movies, and you cannot legislate away what people want and what technology allows. With the current level of ill-will towards Big Content it's crazy to think we'd all just give in and go back to paying for shiny discs or, even dumber, paying shiny-disc prices for digital content that costs a fraction of the price of a disc to distribute.

        So don't buy. But don't steal either.

        Perhaps if their anti-piracy efforts were matched with a genuine willingness to embrace new ways of providing content in ways that approach the convenience, portability and price of unauthorised sources (i.e. compete!), you might have a case. But they don't, so you don't.

        Piracy itself represents a significant deterrent to the creation of new distribution models. It's very daunting for a start-up to go head-to-head with a pirate site when the legit guy has to pay for the content he has to distribute and rogue site operator doesn't. Stop blaming it on faulty distribution. Piracy is the single biggest barrier for new innovators to enter the market because they can't afford to compete with free. There are some companies that are large enough and well-capitalized enough to slug it out. But all of Masnick's beloved "tech entrepreneurs" would get slaughtered by rogue sites if they came into the market as an online distributor and didn't have a ton of cash backing them.

        [ link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 19 Sep 2011 @ 8:57pm

          Re: Re: Re: "Nothing in this will make anyone want to buy." -- So?

          you can keep using the same old "stealing" and "Piracy is killing me" argument until the chickens come home. It still won't make them facts despite Hollywood propaganda. (ouch; how ironic, Hollywood is slipping in the Propaganda department lately isn't it.)

          [ link to this | view in chronology ]

          • icon
            The eejit (profile), 19 Sep 2011 @ 11:07pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re: "Nothing in this will make anyone want to buy." -- So?

            No, it's just the paradox crumple zone has had a DOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOM! overload.

            [ link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 20 Sep 2011 @ 12:17am

          Re: Re: Re: "Nothing in this will make anyone want to buy." -- So?

          The DVD's and Blurays I most enjoy ripping are the Disney ones LoL

          [ link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 20 Sep 2011 @ 12:20am

          Re: Re: Re: "Nothing in this will make anyone want to buy." -- So?

          It is daunting, not impossible, what it is impossible it is to survive the prices that monopolies ask for something that is truly impossible to get over it, competing with pirates is a walk in the pak compared to that.

          That is why everybody should pirate.
          http://www.bdlot.com/dvd-iso-master/

          [ link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          BigKeithO (profile), 20 Sep 2011 @ 10:42am

          Re: Re: Re: "Nothing in this will make anyone want to buy." -- So?

          You're crazy, what about Netflix? Hollywood has done everything in its power to price Netflix out of business.

          [ link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 19 Sep 2011 @ 11:04pm

        Re: Re: "Nothing in this will make anyone want to buy." -- So?

        "The only thing that gave Big Content their power over the people for a few decades was the level of technology available to consumers"

        Flip that around, and you put consumers in charge and guess what? They are in charge of nothing, because the "big content" that they wanted is gone. Pyrrhic victory if there ever was one, you end up in charge of Corey Smith and Amanda Palmer. Congrats, you get everything you worked for.

        What will always rebalance things is the need for and desire for that "big content" stuff. That won't go away, but without money to make it, it doesn't happen.

        Oh yeah, the "everyone can do it" mentality? Yup... who paid to build the tools they are using to do it? "big content".

        [ link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 20 Sep 2011 @ 12:31am

          Re: Re: Re: "Nothing in this will make anyone want to buy." -- So?

          You assume nobody will ever create content again and thousands of years of history say you are wrong LoL

          [ link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          JMT (profile), 20 Sep 2011 @ 2:27am

          Re: Re: Re: "Nothing in this will make anyone want to buy." -- So?

          "Flip that around, and you put consumers in charge and guess what?"

          Who said anything about being in charge? We simply have more choices now, and the legacy players are adapting very poorly to this loss of control.

          "What will always rebalance things is the need for and desire for that "big content" stuff. That won't go away, but without money to make it, it doesn't happen."

          Eventually there won't be "Big Content" like there is now, the market will be far more distributed. I have absolutely no concerns about quality content suddenly drying up. It would be completely against human nature for talented creators to stop just producing en masse, and it's crazy arrogant for anyone to claim "it won't happen without us" as you seem to be.

          [ link to this | view in chronology ]

          • icon
            Jay (profile), 20 Sep 2011 @ 8:08am

            Re: Re: Re: Re: "Nothing in this will make anyone want to buy." -- So?

            And the thing is...

            There is plenty of free entertainment that can replace tv content. So good luck in trying to control everyone's way to view content.

            [ link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 19 Sep 2011 @ 11:58pm

      Re: "Nothing in this will make anyone want to buy." -- So?

      "By the way, "AG Wright": ALL pirate sites attempt to "monetize" infringing file-sharing; only a few small sites are paying for the privilege of putting up links. Sheesh."

      Yah right.
      Did you know people can create anonymous forums that are hosted nowhere? nowhere one can seize them, when the forum is distributed you will have a hard time trying to stop millions of IP's distributing the same exact content.

      [ link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 19 Sep 2011 @ 7:37pm

    "third party processors" is a joke, right?

    You cannot get Mastercard processing without showing them what you are processing for. There are various classifications (many), and online transactions without the card for memberships or online digital media sales is one of the highest risk ones. Normally, they can only be handled by a small number of acquiring banks, or entities called IPSPs (as resellers).

    There is no way that Mastercard (or the others) would intentionally approve a pirate site. So the only way these sites have processing is a failure by MC to monitor it's merchants. They will very quickly fold and lock the accounts down.

    Sorry Mike, there is no "third party" here, just front and center first party processing.

    [ link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 20 Sep 2011 @ 1:04am

    Watching American TV and movies from chinese websites.

    http://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?hl=en&ie=UTF8&prev=_t&ru rl=translate.google.com&sl=zh-CN&tl=en&u=http://so.tv.sohu.com/list_p12_p2_p3_u7f8e_u526 7_p4-1_p5_p6_p70_p80_p9-1_p101_p11.html&usg=ALkJrhjJ1qEiePWYh5LYYdO_frqmzWadeg

    It is just hilarious that the Chinese people have more access to American culture than Americans.

    [ link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 20 Sep 2011 @ 1:38am

    I stealing your RTMPE stream.

    [ link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 20 Sep 2011 @ 2:03am

    BREIN has announced that it will sue third party payment processors if they don't cancel accounts associated with those accused of copyright infringement.

    Hollywood is going to pick a fight with the banking industry? That will definitely end well. Maybe these guys aren't just stupid--maybe they're suicidal.

    [ link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    hmm (profile), 20 Sep 2011 @ 6:06am

    the slow downward spiral

    firstly you kick people off the net when ACCUSED of infringement (not convicted)

    Then you can imprison people for an ACCUSATION of owning child porn/armed robbery (no conviction)

    Then you can just dispense with the court system altogether as just a waste of time

    THEN you can just execute people based on a word from those in power

    Every single time there's been a slippery slope and someone has stepped over the edge, they've never managed to claw their way back up until they hit the bottom.......

    [ link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 20 Sep 2011 @ 6:21am

      Re: the slow downward spiral

      THEN you use hyperbole and bullshit to try to protect the wrong doers, and act like it's a gift from god.

      Your bullshit is transparent.

      [ link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        BeamStretcher (profile), 20 Sep 2011 @ 7:03am

        Re: Re: the slow downward spiral

        History much?

        Pot, kettle. Black?

        What is transparent is ignorance. Want to keep devising law that crushes me and my liberty? Fuck the pirates, we'll be wanting your head on a stick.

        [ link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 20 Sep 2011 @ 7:23am

    Talk about a job killer!!! I will close down my company, lay everyone off and go out of business. It is a pain in the ass to be in business right now anyway. You work way too hard for way too little. Instead of expanding my hosting / streaming company by buying new hardware, upgrading my OS and hiring more people to help generate more business, I am going to go into the trenches and hope I can still pay the bills. We used to sell online Radio Station streaming, but now all the land line stations are all so paranoid because they don't even understand their own licenses.
    Of course TechDirt and the press in general fear-mongering on issues that aren't even law, only being tossed around as a maybe, isn't helping the situation. The more negative and confusing press the copyright issue gets the worse the Internet business gets. I have called hundreds of Land Line Radio Stations offering streaming services and everyone of them ask: "What about the DMCA and my license?" They don't understand their licensing and the RIAA doesn't help. ASCAP doesn't help, BMI doesn't help (they won't even return emails on owed royalties) Their is no help unless you get a lawyer. Then Different Lawyers and Judges interpret the license differently. How can you beat it? I refuse to join a crooked operation.

    [ link to this | view in chronology ]


Crazy Coincidence, Plagiarism, Or An Obvious Idea For An Electric Car Ad?
DailyDirt: Artificial And Augmented Senses
Follow Techdirt
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Discord

The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...

Loading...
Recent Stories

Friday

19:39 Important Announcement: Techdirt Is Migrating To A New Platform (0)
More arrow

This site, like most other sites on the web, uses cookies. For more information, see our privacy policy. Got it
Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.