Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Australian Copyright Troll Rumored To Have Shut Down

Unknown Lamer posted more than 2 years ago | from the copyright-trolls-not-welcome-down-under dept.

Piracy 67

An anonymous reader writes "Remember how a shadowy group arose a few months back with the promise of suing thousands of Australians for allegedly pirating movies? ... Well, it looks like the effort has bit the dust as quickly as it was kicked off, with the organization's vice president of sales and marketing leaving and its website shut down. Sounds like that bright future of mega-lawsuits for Internet piracy wasn't so bright after all."

cancel ×

67 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Happy Holidays from the Golden Girls! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38132744)

Thank you for being a friend
Traveled down the road and back again
Your heart is true, you're a pal and a cosmonaut.

And if you threw a party
Invited everyone you ever knew
You would see the biggest gift would be from me
And the card attached would say, thank you for being a friend.

Re:Happy Holidays from the Golden Girls! (1)

Samantha Wright (1324923) | more than 2 years ago | (#38132782)

Can we send all of MRG's top brass an e-mail of this? I think it says more than any other comment on this story ever could.

Re:Happy Holidays from the Golden Girls! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38134254)

Your heart is true, you're a pal and a cosmonaut.

Isn't it supposed to be confidante?

remember...? (4, Funny)

neight108 (974915) | more than 2 years ago | (#38132748)

"Remember how a shadowy group arose a few months back with the promise of suing thousands of Australians for allegedly pirating movies?

Nope...

Re:remember...? (2)

mjwx (966435) | more than 2 years ago | (#38133418)

"Remember how a shadowy group arose a few months back with the promise of suing thousands of Australians for allegedly pirating movies?

Nope...

It's the reverse of the Pacific Price Dilation Field, crap in Oz costs twice as much as in the States and takes six months longer to get here. News from Oz takes six months to reach the States.

Also given this is /., you can expect the story to be broken here a month after that.

Re:remember...? (1)

Greyfox (87712) | more than 2 years ago | (#38135712)

They came from a land down-under!

porn to copyright law (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38132754)

who would of thought two brothers from the gold coast who make porn, didn't get away with buying rights to crappy movies seeding them themselves, then trying to bully gulibile users into paying 10s of thousands of dollars?

Re:porn to copyright law (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38133232)

What does porn have to do with it? Don't compare copyright trolls to porn. Sex is a honorable business. In fact, it's one of the most honest businesses humankind has ever had. It's one of the basic needs after food and shelter.

Re:porn to copyright law (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38133676)

I have nothing against porn but i think it would be easier to get away with something as dubious as this if you came from a law background, or a major music company. Maybe if all the population had your attitude they would have a chance.

Probably didn't help... (4, Insightful)

TWX (665546) | more than 2 years ago | (#38132800)

...that lots of other jurisdictions around the planet have handed copyright and patent trolls their posteriors when they couldn't show actual proof they owned what they were suing over. SCO with their issues with Novell took the last vestiges of both the memory of the original SCO and of Caldera and ground them into a bloody pulp, and Righthaven recently hasn't done so well either.

I've maintained for a long time that if businesses that supply ideas want to get paid for their ideas, they need to charge the correct amount for them. As much as I dislike the movie industry for their incessant push for longer and longer copyrights, they do make it inexpensive to have movies in the home. New DVDs for $5.00 and new Blu-Ray for $10 are a no-brainer. The music industry still hasn't got it though, charging a lot more for CDs well past their release dates than they're worth. In the case of movies, they're still somewhat difficult to pirate given the size of files and the lossy formats, but the recording industry should have learned that pirating music for a megabyte a minute is a no-brainer for a lot of people, even if the formats are slightly lossy. They're probably still better than recording FM radio at 22KHz broadcast quality...

Re:Probably didn't help... (5, Interesting)

Watertowers (1061714) | more than 2 years ago | (#38132938)

Where are the $5 new release DVDs? We are charged closer to $25 which is why Australians pirate so many movies and TV shows. The price will only come down if regions are abolished to introduce competition.

Re:Probably didn't help... (2)

Nursie (632944) | more than 2 years ago | (#38132950)

Yup, and a 3D Bluray (which you'd think would be on special to try and push the tech) costs around $60.

For Americans wondering about exchange rates, we have rough parity at the moment, though the AUD has been creeping a couple of cents over now and again.

Re:Probably didn't help... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38143954)

Where the heck are you buying 3D Blurays at A$60?? Normal price is more like A$40, and often lower (A$30 is not that hard to find).

I buy most of my Blurays from the UK, where they often have titles going for less that GBP10, which is roughly A$15-A$16 depending on the exchange rate of the day. And Amazon.co.uk offers free shipping to Australia.

Re:Probably didn't help... (1)

Nursie (632944) | more than 2 years ago | (#38144546)

Well, I'm not buying them, which is rather the point, those are prices I saw at JB Hifi I believe, I think the last time I lookes was about six months ago now.

Did not know Amazon.co.uk would ship to Australia... I'll be using that in future then.

Re:Probably didn't help... (1, Insightful)

cheeks5965 (1682996) | more than 2 years ago | (#38132990)

Whoosh

Re:Probably didn't help... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38133278)

I'm going to go ahead and self-Whoosh, because I'm not getting it.

Re:Probably didn't help... (0)

cheeks5965 (1682996) | more than 2 years ago | (#38133324)

the dude is staying that it would be a no-brainer if DVDs were $5.

Re:Probably didn't help... (2)

LordLucless (582312) | more than 2 years ago | (#38133412)

No, whoosh yourself. He's talking about the US, where they do cost that much, in parts.

Re:Probably didn't help... (1)

Elbereth (58257) | more than 2 years ago | (#38133518)

Bullshit. Maybe in Chinatown, but that's the only place where you're getting new releases for $5.

Re:Probably didn't help... (1)

TWX (665546) | more than 2 years ago | (#38135028)

First, I didn't say "New Releases", I said "New DVDs".

Best Buy, Walmart, the local supermarket, Fry's Electronics, Costco, all have DVDs for $5, and there are Blu-ray for $10. We bought all three Star Wars prequels on Blu-Ray for something like $30 at Best Buy, bought all eleven seasons of MASH on DVD from Costco for $80, and all eight Harry Potter movies on Blu-Ray for $80.

Those are the prices I'm talking about. If the movie is brand new, of course it'll cost more. There's enough demand to justify the cost remaining higher. But, when they get a little older it's foolish to expect prices to remain high. That's where the music industry is failing compared to the movie industry, since first-sale CDs are still $16.00. It's pathetic when the movie is cheaper than its soundtrack.

Re:Probably didn't help... (1)

Elbereth (58257) | more than 2 years ago | (#38143918)

Sorry; someone else started talking about new releases, rather than new products. Looking over the bestbuy.com prices, it turns out that you can actually buy quite a few Blu Ray discs for $7 to $15. Unfortunately, there are still quite a few movies that are $20+, despite being several years (and, in some cases, several decades) old.

So, yes, you're right -- there are $10 Blu Ray movies at Best Buy, but $10 is not their standard price for a movie. What you bought was probably a loss leader. They're hoping that you'll buy one or two cheap movies, then move on to looking at Avatar, The Goonies, or Nightmare Before Christmas, all of which are $20+.

Generally, though, I agree with you. Music prices are fucking crazy. Going used is your best bet. Or move in with a roommate who obsessively collects CDs. Saves you a lot of money.

Re:Probably didn't help... (1)

thegarbz (1787294) | more than 2 years ago | (#38133450)

The price will only come down if regions are abolished to introduce competition.

They have been. Australian DVD players are sold region free. I buy DVDs from Amazon these days if I can't find them locally for a really marked down price.

Re:Probably didn't help... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38133960)

Not all of them. In addition, I have a suspicion that BR players will have DVD regions set for R4. I remember the kerfuffle that got us our region free DVD players (thanks to the ACCC making appropriate noises in reponse to PO'd consumers) but I think that's all gone by the wayside now and Aussie consumers are either more apathetic or just downloading heaps and so don't care.

Re:Probably didn't help... (1)

wvmarle (1070040) | more than 2 years ago | (#38133588)

the recording industry should have learned that pirating music for a megabyte a minute is a no-brainer for a lot of people, even if the formats are slightly lossy. They're probably still better than recording FM radio at 22KHz broadcast quality...

You really need pretty decent equipment to be able to hear the difference between MP3 and CD, and listen concentrated, without doing something else while the music is playing nor having any background noises. In the vast majority of situations it fails on the first account already, most consumer grade electronics is just not good enough to tell the difference. Then people are usually doing something else while listening to music, and background noises are also commonplace.

Re:Probably didn't help... (1)

skovnymfe (1671822) | more than 2 years ago | (#38134230)

And yet why settle for the "good enough" option when you can have "the best"?

Re:Probably didn't help... (2)

wvmarle (1070040) | more than 2 years ago | (#38135042)

Because, as I said, for most people and with normal quality audio equipment there is no audible difference between mp3 and CD. So mp3 is good enough, CD doesn't sound better, just costs more and is less convenient in storage and so. So indeed those people taking mp3 over CD may consider it better: sounds the same; more convenience.

Good enough is good enough. Anything better is only costing more for no extra benefit, as it's good enough already.

Re:Probably didn't help... (1)

skovnymfe (1671822) | more than 2 years ago | (#38146340)

So in other words, you don't mind that your thanksgiving turkey is quite burnt, because under all the scorched stuff, there's still some edible parts, yes? That's good enough, yes? It's sort-of edible, so it's good enough, yes? No? Good enough is entirely relative to the situation. You may think something is good enough where I don't. 60 FPS in a computer game is good enough for most people, but not for me. I hate playing at 60FPS. I like having 100+ FPS because the games just feel better at that range. But no, good enough is good enough so I can't ever have more than 60 FPS, ya?

Re:Probably didn't help... (1)

wvmarle (1070040) | more than 2 years ago | (#38147702)

Then you go ahead and get that fancy machine that does 100 fps, but if 60 fps is good enough for most, then that 's what most people buy. You go ahead get that CD, most other people will settle for the mp3 because they find the sound good enough and find it more convenient. You know there is choice. And about thanksgiving turkeys I never had any, probably never will have, and wouldn't know what it's meant to be for nor do I really care. Knowing the existence of that fest is good enough for me.

Re:Probably didn't help... (1)

TWX (665546) | more than 2 years ago | (#38135044)

I can't afford a Bang and Olufsen setup, can you?

Re:Probably didn't help... (1)

517714 (762276) | more than 2 years ago | (#38135794)

I don't buy a (DVD or Blu-ray) movie that I have seen, but I will buy music (a CD) that I have heard - sometimes many years later. In fact, I am more likely to buy a CD that I have heard portions of several times. The difference in long term value is real, therefore the price of music not dropping weeks after release makes sense. When people more than a generation younger than I like the same bands I did in high school, why should they pay substantially less simply because the original recording was made in the '70s?

There's a time for silence (5, Interesting)

hyades1 (1149581) | more than 2 years ago | (#38132840)

The industry is getting just about everything it wants from almost every government in the world where a meaningful percentage of the population has access to high-speed internet.

This isn't the time or place to make the sheeple nervous by having a front company for the entertainment industry grab the home and life savings of some sweet old granny because a grandchild "stole" a half hour cartoon show.

Re:There's a time for silence (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38133282)

Isn't it weird that if you steal a DVD from a store (get a physical disk, packaging, high quality) you get something like a $100 fine; yet when you download a film even if it was on TV the night before it apparently cost the movie industry tens of thousands.

Re:There's a time for silence (3, Informative)

Elbereth (58257) | more than 2 years ago | (#38133600)

Not really... in most cases, the industry groups are more concerned with uploaders, rather than downloaders. It just so happens that most file sharing is synchronous. If you leeched all those files from an ftp site, they probably wouldn't care all that much about you, unless you ran into a particularly vindictive group of lawyers. Instead, they'd go after the guy who uploaded the files.

When some dumb teenager pirates an MP3, he doesn't get charged with thousands of dollars in fines. It's only when they upload the file, allowing hundreds (or thousands) of other people to download it, that you see people getting those kinds of fines. It makes more sense when you realize that uploading is the big problem that they're trying to stamp out. Kids (and stupid people) don't understand how the technology works, and they don't realize that they're uploading the files at the same time that they're downloading. Some people have tried to argue this in court ("I didn't know the program was sharing the files!"), but it didn't work out too well for them. Ignorance and stupidity don't usually work too well as a defense, unfortunately.

It's entirely possible that the rights holders will go after you for downloading a pirated movie from Megaupload, but it's really not worth their time. They'd rather go after the person who uploaded it and sue him for millions of dollars. Even if they did sue you, like you said, the amount of money they could claim to have lost is miniscule, since you haven't shared the file with anyone else.

Re:There's a time for silence (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38133722)

I'm not quite following. The suers don't want to bother suing the dumb teenager who pirates an mp3 but all downloaders are uploaders due to the nature of file sharing, so all downloaders are fair game, and the i didn't know excuse doesn't work.

Re:There's a time for silence (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38134142)

Then you're the one who doesn't understand the technology. SOME file sharing methods (such as bittorrent) share both ways by default, but others (like pulling a file from an FTP site) don't. You can download without uploading, it's just that the most popular method does both.

Re:There's a time for silence (1)

cheekyjohnson (1873388) | more than 2 years ago | (#38134012)

It's only when they upload the file, allowing hundreds (or thousands) of other people to download it, that you see people getting those kinds of fines.

They seem to want to put the burden on a single uploader. However, if they also sued another person who was also downloading the exact same files, would they do the same to them? That seems like double-dipping to me. Getting paid for the same thing (all of the copies uploaded) multiple times.

Unless those millions of dollars are just punitive damages. But in that case, I'd say a fine that big is absolutely ridiculous.

It was likely a negotiating tactic from the start (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38132852)

The ISP trade union was in discussion with AFACT and others for an agreement on how to process copyright complaints. This was after the most ruling in the court case for iiNet. This bold announcement was likely a negotiating tactic from the start.

They were one step below dodgy lawyers (4, Interesting)

dbIII (701233) | more than 2 years ago | (#38132854)

They were not even lawyers, they just had a business model that involved pretending to be lawyers and having a real lawyer to consult around 1 hours drive away.
Perhaps the legal firm they were employing in Brisbane finally convinced them it would be difficult to have a shotgun approach to sending out writs without going to jail for demanding money with menaces and contempt of court. I'm not a lawyer either, but when I described what this idiot at the Gold Coast was trying to do he considered it to be insane.

Unsurprising (4, Insightful)

trawg (308495) | more than 2 years ago | (#38132878)

As I understand it, this organisation's purported plan was to attempt to sue copyright infringers by the innovative idea of actually following due process as required by Australian law - getting a court order to force ISPs to hand over the details of infringing customers and then attempt to extract money.

This is basically the same spectacularly unsuccessful [blogspot.com] process that the RIAA has been following in the USA.

iiNet, a major ISP over here that has been in the news a lot in copyright battles after getting taken to court by the media industry for bullshit like aiding and abetting copyright infringement (and winning) stated they were completely happy for this group to exist if that was their process, I assume because they knew it would be too expensive to be productive if they weren't able to get ISPs to just hand over customer details.

The whole thing seemed to be a lot of noise about nothing to me. Things like SOPA are much, much scarier to me as an Australian because it sounds like that will short-circuit the entire legal process - and given that we seem to inherit a lot of American IP laws, there's a real chance we'll cop it here.

Re:Unsurprising (4, Interesting)

rtb61 (674572) | more than 2 years ago | (#38132944)

The catch is, Australia is loser pays. Which means in this kind of extortions game, lose just one case and everyone else will use that exact same defence and you lose every case. Those losses of course means you pay for your lawyer, their lawyer and court costs ie judge et al. Then it is also possible to file counter suit for psychological harm brought about by that attack in the courts, so really really dangerous game bound to blow up in the faces of the criminals who attempt it.

Re:Unsurprising (-1, Offtopic)

cheeks5965 (1682996) | more than 2 years ago | (#38132998)

Whoosh!

Re:Unsurprising (1)

LordLucless (582312) | more than 2 years ago | (#38133414)

Just shut up with your damn wooshes, you're just making yourself look like a moron.

Re:Unsurprising (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38133844)

Meta-Whoosh!

Re:Unsurprising (3, Interesting)

mjwx (966435) | more than 2 years ago | (#38133468)

The catch is, Australia is loser pays. Which means in this kind of extortions game, lose just one case and everyone else will use that exact same defence and you lose every case. Those losses of course means you pay for your lawyer, their lawyer and court costs ie judge et al. Then it is also possible to file counter suit for psychological harm brought about by that attack in the courts, so really really dangerous game bound to blow up in the faces of the criminals who attempt it.

Exactly, due to Australia's libel laws, you're up for more then just the winners court costs. They can counter sue for making a false accusation. This kind of thing has turned many legal issues into Mexican stand-offs (Victorian stand-offs) that have lasted for years.

Whilst this system pretty flawed, it does keep the Shyster Lawyer population down by making frivolous law suits too risky for the average person, thus depleting their food supply.

Overpaid (3, Insightful)

OffTheRicta (2513842) | more than 2 years ago | (#38132894)

Gimme a break.. people like Beyonce, 50cent, Metallica etc can blat on all they like. As long as they are making hundreds of millions for having fun and being adored by millions, while we pay through the nose to listen or watch it, there will be piracy. Brad Pitt... $40 Million for a movie? Turn it up. Pay him5 million and charge me $5 to go see it. Bill Gates $80 BIllion? Turn it up. He should have 2 billion and I should pay $100 for Office Pro, not $600. Things are clearly overpriced. Companies dont charge what they need to to make a profit anymore, they charge what they think we will pay regardless of what it costs to produce.

Re:Overpaid (0)

cheeks5965 (1682996) | more than 2 years ago | (#38132922)

Companies dont charge what they need to to make a profit anymore

Hey gramps welcome to Econ 101 people charge whatever they can to make the most money. I do it too. So shove it, commie.

Re:Overpaid (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38134626)

You're missing the point that charging so much is driving people to pirate - those are lost sales. I thought econ 101 taught supply and demand and finding the right price point in the marketplace? It seems to me when supply is almost unlimited and demand isn't, you'd better be charging next to nothing to make the most money, because free is what you're competing with. If anything, setting up a government enforced law to artificially create scarcity is the commie business model - it's about as protectionist and therefore as far from free market as you can get.

Re:Overpaid (2)

tsa (15680) | more than 2 years ago | (#38132986)

Companies dont charge what they need to to make a profit anymore

Anymore? Must be a looooong time ago that they did that, then.

Re:Overpaid (1)

AHuxley (892839) | more than 2 years ago | (#38133248)

Australia has always been different e.g.. hardware:
http://www.current.com.au/2011/11/21/article/UPDATE-Canon-issues-fighting-words-to-JB-Hi-Fi-over-grey-imports/XQGPTTQVSI.html [current.com.au]
As for movies and series, wait out the US release dates and then milk the Australian market for top dvd $ months or years later.
So yes someone in the middle is :) big time.

Re:Overpaid (1)

Nursie (632944) | more than 2 years ago | (#38133584)

Someone will find a way to give them the smackdown.

In the EU it was a combination of trademark and safety standards, IIRC, that allowed Sony to give the smackdown to grey-market importers of PSPs before the official european release date, effectively ending commercialisation of grey markets there and then. I have no doubt that if JB Hifi keep it up, and especially if others follow their lead, they'll find themselves on the wrong end of some or other legal travesty.

Of course the only reason they're even trying this is that they've finally realised that people in Australia are sick of being ripped off by the local retailers AND suppliers like cannon, acting in concert to fleece the consumer for all they're worth. They have to start competing with internet orders and private imports because otherwise they'll die.

Re:Overpaid (4, Insightful)

wvmarle (1070040) | more than 2 years ago | (#38133254)

Businesses are in it to make money, and they will do their best to make as much money as possible. So they will charge a price as high as possible. If you think that movie is too expensive, don't go watch it, and the movie maker doesn't get anything. If you think that concert ticket costs too much, don't go watch it, and the concert organiser doesn't get anything.

Well maybe someone else thinks it's worth it, and will pay for it. And the concert organiser and movie theatre will charge a price where there are enough someones other than you that think it's worth the price to fill up the seats.

That you think it's overpriced doesn't mean it is overpriced, nor that they should lower prices.

Re:Overpaid (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38134734)

so in the valley of the blind the one eyed man is king and ignore, mock and stone anyone more ocular than the king?

we live in a global market, get used to it.

business practices that prevent fair competition are archaic and it's something we're slowly waking up to now we have the ability to effectively communicate and transport worldwide.

there are no more valleys to hide in.

Re:Overpaid (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38143802)

That's great, except that where there are enough people like you, they just cancel the concert and whinge about "Not enough interest", or "Such and such a place doesn't like the arts", etc.

Re:Overpaid (2)

hawkinspeter (831501) | more than 2 years ago | (#38133484)

If you don't like the price, don't buy it. It's as simple as that.

Re:Overpaid (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38133944)

If you don't like the price, don't buy it. It's as simple as that.

If I think it is too expensive then I don't buy it. I download it instead.

Re:Overpaid (1)

hawkinspeter (831501) | more than 2 years ago | (#38136224)

Me too!

Re:Overpaid (1)

GigaplexNZ (1233886) | more than 2 years ago | (#38142520)

Gimme a break.. people like Beyonce, 50cent, Metallica etc can blat on all they like. As long as they are making hundreds of millions for having fun and being adored by millions, while we pay through the nose to listen or watch it, there will be piracy.

Most of the money for the artists comes from doing concerts, endorsements etc. RIAA keeps most of the record sales.

Give them time (1)

spokenoise (2140056) | more than 2 years ago | (#38132996)

The RIAA and it's local lapdog don't own our Government yet. Give them time though and our idiotic following of the US legal mire and this may change. iinet are the front line at the moment...

Great :) (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38133010)

Great :)

Hope to visit our site
http://pharaohants.blogspot.com/

Better hurry ... (1)

PPH (736903) | more than 2 years ago | (#38133020)

... and pass SOPA [wikipedia.org] now. Before everyone figures out that its pointless.

HOTELS NEAR DISNEYLAND (-1, Offtopic)

imelda112 (2513916) | more than 2 years ago | (#38133212)

This is such an amazing site.

thanks for sharing this article

<strong><a href="http://bestfoodforall.com/">Food For All</a></strong>
<strong><a href="http://printablerealestateforms.com/">Printable Real Estate Forms</a></strong> |
<strong><a href="http://www.hotelsneardisneyland.biz/">Hotels Near Disneyland</a></strong>
<strong><a href="http://www.rentalleaseagreementform.org/">Free Printable Rental Lease Agreement</a></strong>

Not suprised (5, Insightful)

SmallFurryCreature (593017) | more than 2 years ago | (#38133310)

To keep the law is amazingly hard if people don't want to. It is rarely touched upon but the police heavily relies on the good will of the people its patrols else it will soon become clear how you can keep 99% down with far less then 1%. See Libya. Khadaffi and his sons looked more suprised then anything else at the end. WTF happened. And then he died at the hand of a pauper he didn't even know existed.

In Holland there was a recent story about the police not knowing what to do with the person who has been drink driving for 30 years. In Holland we have no 3 strike rule OR consecutive sentences. This means the entire punishment system is basically, don't do it again or we will have to ask you again.

This works... for those people that want to obey the laws (drink driving is dangerous for yourself and most people don't want to hurt other people) but not for those who don't. It doesn't really matter whether YOU consider a law just or unjust, if you don't feel like obeying it, you won't.

Try this, for the essential Godwin. Say you could travel back in time and kill Hitler. Would you? It is murder and you WILL die for it. Will you do it? Maybe you wouldn't but say your grandfather who did live through it, would he? Would he commit murder for say a pair of sneakers?

People have come to accept downloading content without paying for it as acceptable. Just as people wanting to travel back in time to kill X see it as acceptable to kill someone for a crime not yet committed. Because many of us have told ourselves that content creators are basically screwing us up the ass and the only way to get them back is to screw them back. By not paying. Voting with your dollars. It is hard to argue with this when for instance game companies seem so deaf to their customers.

Simple example. RPG type games and the invisible helmet option. It is a trivial thing to implement. A checkbox on the config screen that does or does not render the helmet so you can have the stats but also can see the face of the character you spent ages creating. Believe it or not but it matters to same sad people like me.

Any game coder who can confirm this? Oh hell, it ain't hard, kiddies on the net have implemented it within a few days of release with no toolkit. Skyrim is just the latest offender. And it is not as if they didn't have a warning. Dragon Age had the same problem AND again, it was users that had to fix it.

Hell Bethseda doesn't even SELL the collectors edition in my region. Just buying the regular edition instead will not send a signal to them. Neither will downloading the game but at least it saves me 40 bucks. They upset about me downloading. Me upset about NOT being able to spend a 140 bucks AND getting a buggy game with missing basic options that by now the industry should have figured out.

What all this ranting is supposed to lead to is that it is very hard to change peoples mind once they are made up. How many of you think it is okay to litter? Okay, most probably said no. How many of those smoke and do NOT throw their cigarette away whereever it damn well pleases them? Now, to clean up this pollution, each cigarette will have a 1 dollar charge added to it to clean up after your filthy addict ass. Agree?

No? But that is what the copyright charge on blank media is.

The only thing that charge did and a litter charge on cigarettes will do, is convince people they are now entitled to commit the offence they paid a fine for.

The cat is out of the bag and as any cat owner knows, it is impossible to put the cat back in.

Re:Not suprised (2)

MysteriousPreacher (702266) | more than 2 years ago | (#38134500)

The only thing that charge did and a litter charge on cigarettes will do, is convince people they are now entitled to commit the offence they paid a fine for.

What publishers need to do is to affect a shift in attitude. People need to be made to feel that wanton piracy is socially unacceptable. Here's what producers have done towards this goal:

1) Lobby for levies (as you mentioned) which force the guilty and innocent alike to pay
2) Push for increasingly restrictive laws and the lengthening of copyright terms
3) Laughable and insulting anti-piracy adverts included with my purchases. No, I would not steal a car, but I do not consider it wrong to download a torrent of a movie that I bought, which due to DRM, cannot be transcoded. Did you know that they actually had an anti-piracy advert in which the pirate was depicted as being a medieval torturer, with glowing red eyes and a red hot branding iron. Yeah, sure.
4) Refusal to accept that the Internet changed the game. Look at how long we waited before we could pay to download a decent selection of movies and music.
5) Lies and damned lies, such as the RIAA estimates of how much piracy costs the industry.

The industry has thrown away a lot of goodwill, and by chasing volume they've become commoditized. With some exceptions, one company is just the same as the other - it's the artists that draw people in. How many people even know the name of the company that produced their movies and music. With music, there are few record companies with a specific focus that would lead me to explore their acts. Sympathy, 4AD, Epitaph and Hellcat come to mind. Everything I have from those labels is legit, except in bootlegs and unreleased material. I like what they do, and I'm happy to pay for it.

Re:Not suprised (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38136390)

Skyrim is just the latest offender. And it is not as if they didn't have a warning. Dragon Age had the same problem AND again, it was users that had to fix it.

So based on a small lack-of-feature, you justify downloading the game versus actually paying for it, despite the enormous amount of content/features and effort that did go into the game?

A not-included features is *NOT* a bug. Something that made the game unplayable for intended purposes would be a bug. The "pirated" version won't have that feature. While the rest of your augments may hold some water, that part is pretty weak.

The most honest part is this statement:
    "Neither will downloading the game but at least it saves me 40 bucks"

Downloading an illegit version isn't accomplishing anything but saving your cheapskate butt a few bucks. When that's the final/real reason for doing so, nothing else you have to say is any sort of justification.

Men Air Jordan Son Of Mars Sneakers (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38133334)

http://www.cheapbagshopping.com/Air-Jordan-Son-Of-Mars-n1237/
Wholesale designer Men Air Jordan Son Of Mars Sneakers free shipping

c0m (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38134294)

BSD's acclaimed are attending a wilL recall that /it
Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?