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!

Campaign Urges People To Send MPAA and RIAA Copied Currency

samzenpus posted more than 2 years ago | from the counterfeiting-equipment-not-included dept.

Piracy 413

An anonymous reader writes "In response to the still-raging MPAA & RIAA, a kind of reverse piracy campaign has arisen. The "Send Them Your Money" campaign urges pirates and landlubbers alike to send scanned images of American currency to these agencies. According to the campaign's webpage, 'They've made it very clear that they consider digital copies to be just as valuable as the original.' The operation gained fame via sites like Reddit and Tumblr, inspiring citizens of other countries to send their legal tender to the MPAA and RIAA."

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

Genius. (3, Interesting)

Severus Snape (2376318) | more than 2 years ago | (#39366507)

I think I might do the same.

Re:Genius. (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Psychopath (18031) | more than 2 years ago | (#39366749)

I think I might do the same.

Yes, it's genius. Clearly this is the same thing, because copies of money are identical to the original and can be used the same. Oh, wait... I just realized that this analogy is complete bullshit invented by a moron.

Re:Genius. (2, Insightful)

NatasRevol (731260) | more than 2 years ago | (#39366785)

That's kinda the point.

That you missed.

Now who's the moron?

Re:Genius. (1, Troll)

Anonymous Psychopath (18031) | more than 2 years ago | (#39366895)

That's kinda the point.

That you missed.

Now who's the moron?

I'm still missing the point, then. Is this not an attempt to make a statement that copied money is equivalent to copied files? Please explain what I've missed, since I'm so stupid and you're so smart.

Re:Genius. (4, Insightful)

Avarist (2453728) | more than 2 years ago | (#39367037)

That's kinda the point.

That you missed.

Now who's the moron?

I'm still missing the point, then. Is this not an attempt to make a statement that copied money is equivalent to copied files? Please explain what I've missed, since I'm so stupid and you're so smart.

It's making a statement that by the way MPAA & RIAA considers virtual copies of a film/game/song to be worth as much as the original, you might as well put the same logic to currency. Which doesn't make sense the same way that virtual copies of a film/game/song being worth as much as the original.

Re:Genius. (5, Insightful)

Score Whore (32328) | more than 2 years ago | (#39366925)

I don't think he did miss the point. A digital bit-for-bit copy of a movie has almost the same value as the original dvd/bluray/stream. On the other hand a photocopied/scanned/printed copy of a dollar bill has zero value. Not even the people who are pushing this idea believe the equivalency proposed. If they did they would be perfectly happy with receiving photocopied cash as pay for their day jobs. Or they would be willing to receive 4 gigabyte streams of random bits in lieu of actual copies of movies, as long as the titles of the files were correct. Neither of these are true, so this whole thing is bunk.

Re:Genius. (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39366939)

I think you missed the point. If you make a copy of a dollar bill, you can't use the copy. It is by definition not as valuable as the original. If you make a copy of a CD, you can use the copy. It is just as valuable as the original. Only a moron wouldn't see the difference. I don't remember anyone from the RIAA ever claiming that "A copy of anything is just as valuable as the original", obviously that would be stupid. I would also urge people to think twice before joining in on this retarded campaign. Ignoring it's obvious pointlessness, it is a federal crime to scan and print US currency.

Re:Genius. (5, Funny)

neokushan (932374) | more than 2 years ago | (#39366883)

I just copied this text from another comment:

Whoosh!

Re:Genius. (5, Funny)

Oswald McWeany (2428506) | more than 2 years ago | (#39366933)

I just copied this text from another comment:

Whoosh!

--
+1 IDisagreeSoHeMustBeATrollOrAnAstroturferOrAShill

Re:Genius. (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39367027)

I just copied this text from another comment:

Whoosh!
     

Re: (5, Informative)

binarylarry (1338699) | more than 2 years ago | (#39366511)

Just make sure your money is slightly bigger than real money or you might end up in Guantanamo bay.

Re: (3, Informative)

SomePgmr (2021234) | more than 2 years ago | (#39366661)

I was going to say, isn't this a felony?

Sounds like an easy way to get everyone that opposes you in a whole heap of trouble, all in one hit. So let's not do them any favors, eh?

Re:Felony (5, Funny)

joeboomer628 (869162) | more than 2 years ago | (#39367043)

If you MP3 encode them it will reduce them to a legal size.

Re: (3, Informative)

kimvette (919543) | more than 2 years ago | (#39366723)

That won't work.

Scan it in, and add in the text in a white box "This is a copy. Not worth the same as the original, is it?"

Distributing a copy of money, even if the size is different to make it clear it is fake is sometimes considered counterfeit by the secret service, particularly if someone is already gunning for you. If you include a very clear disclaimer on the bill, any case should be thrown out by the courts because it will be obvious there is no intent to pass off your copy as the real deal.

Re: (5, Informative)

cplusplus (782679) | more than 2 years ago | (#39366863)

You can read all the rules about copying money here: Rules For Use [rulesforuse.org]

Re: (1)

Skapare (16644) | more than 2 years ago | (#39367207)

If a disclaimer does the job, then just include one on the copies of music/movies to make those copies worthless.

Re: (4, Informative)

DanTheStone (1212500) | more than 2 years ago | (#39366771)

It shouldn't matter, as long as you're sending them only scans and not printouts. A scan or photograph could not be reasonably considered a counterfeit bill as long as it's not printed. The title and article misleadingly say "copied" bills, but the actual campaign says to send scans and photographs.

Re: (1)

meerling (1487879) | more than 2 years ago | (#39367003)

Some scanners and scan software will refuse to capture the image of what they think is actual currency. Don't know the current list of which ones are affected by that, it's not like people do it a lot.

Re: (1)

meerling (1487879) | more than 2 years ago | (#39366975)

By default it is, it's missing an entire dimension, thickness (or depth) of 0. With no Z, it's just not the same size.
Fortunately there isn't anything useful on the edges of the money, so you don't really have to worry about scanning that.
>^_^<

Re: (2)

izomiac (815208) | more than 2 years ago | (#39367045)

IMHO, scanning coins would be a good way to send the same message, but not risk running afoul of counterfeiting laws.

Re: (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39367089)

No, not just slightly bigger. There are regulations on this. Either less than 50% or greater than 150%, if I recall correctly.

Re: (3, Funny)

khallow (566160) | more than 2 years ago | (#39367127)

Or you could helpfully send a copy of the currency to the Secret Service and report the *IAA for incitement to counterfeiting.

i thought scanners won't scan money? (2)

alen (225700) | more than 2 years ago | (#39366517)

i keep reading how scanners and copying machines are programmed not to scan or copy money

easy test (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39366561)

try your cell phone

Re:i thought scanners won't scan money? (0, Troll)

SJHillman (1966756) | more than 2 years ago | (#39366565)

Yes, because every scanner and copier has special firmware and image recognition software as well as a psychic link to a secret government computer (in case they're not online) to receive updates on every change to currency. It's so advanced it can even tell the difference between Monopoly money and Canadian money, something only one in five Americans can do.

Re:i thought scanners won't scan money? (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39366645)

Actually, they tend to have the firmware, yes...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EURion_constellation

Re:i thought scanners won't scan money? (1)

ClintJCL (264898) | more than 2 years ago | (#39366733)

I don't understand your response. You're acting like scanners don't have circuitry to recognize, and refuse to copy money. Many/most do, and this has been documented on slashdot before.

Re:i thought scanners won't scan money? (5, Interesting)

slaker (53818) | more than 2 years ago | (#39367173)

Ages ago I was teaching a bunch of people how to work scanners in a training session. We scanned a whole bunch of stuff and most people were clearly able to see that commercially printed content doesn't look appreciably different when scanned at 600dpi or 1200dpi. Eventually I had the bright idea to try to scan a $20 bill since they're actually fine fabric and not paper. It scanned fine at 600dpi and previewed OK at higher settings, but every time I tried to scan it at a higher setting, the area of the bill would be replaced by black pixels in the finished image. My students and I decided it was probably an anti-counterfeiting measure and after about 40 minutes of experimentation with things like discoloring the bills, tearing them so they no longer resembled whole bills (we used a couple $1s for that), zooming in on small areas etc. we determined that whatever was going on was actually pretty tough to fool.

Re:i thought scanners won't scan money? (1)

mcfatboy93 (1363705) | more than 2 years ago | (#39366577)

seeing how my copy machine breaks down so often, I would be surprised if that was actually true. how could that piece of junk have anything in it besides the process to stop working.

Re:i thought scanners won't scan money? (1)

meerling (1487879) | more than 2 years ago | (#39367039)

:) maybe that's why it's screwed up :)

Re:i thought scanners won't scan money? (2)

shippers (1100005) | more than 2 years ago | (#39366649)

Just scanned a £12 note with no problem!

Re:i thought scanners won't scan money? (1)

Dark$ide (732508) | more than 2 years ago | (#39366943)

Just scanned a £12 note with no problem!

And you're now as guilty of infringing the Bank of England's copyright as I was when I scanned that 9 bob note.

Seriously the tenner in my wallet does have "© the Governor and Company of the Bank of England 2000" printed on the back of it.

Re:i thought scanners won't scan money? (1)

Samantha Wright (1324923) | more than 2 years ago | (#39366993)

Oh yeah?! Well *I* just scanned a $13 bill with no problems!

Re:i thought scanners won't scan money? (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39366697)

I actually worked for a copier company once upon a time.
When users tried to make copies of money the copiers would display an error code and lock the machine until a technician was called at which time we were "required" to inform the manufacturer and the authorities.

We only ever ran into this issue twice. Once at an office which though it would be funny to make copies of dollar bills with the employees photos on them and another time at a police station which needed to make copies of counterfeit bills for use as evidence in a trial.

Re:i thought scanners won't scan money? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39366751)

What?

That doesn't seem computationally plausible.

Money has been redesigned to make it a bitch to photocopy correctly (watermarks, special colors, security threads, etc). I could also believe that photocopiers and scannersr insert a "security code" into everything the copy/scan like printers do. But um... I honestly can't see how a scanner would determine automatically that something was money and refuse to operate.

Re:i thought scanners won't scan money? (1)

RobertLTux (260313) | more than 2 years ago | (#39366887)

easy to do have some sort of hard to see pattern that is hard see with the naked eye but can be picked up in a scan sort of a DO NOT COPY watermark.

Re:i thought scanners won't scan money? (2)

bws111 (1216812) | more than 2 years ago | (#39366949)

You are aware that vending machines, ATM's etc do this sort of thing aren't you?

Re:i thought scanners won't scan money? (2)

theshowmecanuck (703852) | more than 2 years ago | (#39366951)

I think it might be more like 'make it a bitch to print'. Copying the images is easy and possible. Printing the very fine details takes special presses and papers (linen in many cases). And of course watermarks etc.

I was at a Schnuks grocery store in Saint Louis MO (Clayton actually) one night about 5 years ago and there were a bunch of the managers holding up a bill and examining it etc. When I asked they told me it was a counterfeit $50 dollar bill. One guy held it up to the light for me to see the watermark. The perpetrator had bleached a $5 dollar bill and then used an inkjet to print a $50 dollar bill image on the now white $5 dollar bill. The only reason they caught it was the watermark.

Re:i thought scanners won't scan money? (1)

mindwhip (894744) | more than 2 years ago | (#39366821)

Like cake, that has always been a lie. Along with the embedded fingerprint that is supposedly able to trace a copy back to a specific machine.

However it is very hard to make a passable copy using these devices, even the very high quality ones, as the paper (often actually a fabric and not paper) and inks (colour and texture) used, level of fine detail and other features such as metal woven strips make it almost impossible to scan or print without using a wet ink printing press.

Re:i thought scanners won't scan money? (4, Informative)

v1 (525388) | more than 2 years ago | (#39367113)

ike cake, that has always been a lie. Along with the embedded fingerprint that is supposedly able to trace a copy back to a specific machine.

No, this is very real in color photocopiers and color laser printers. They tend to place a copy of their serial number at regular intervals on color printouts, in such a faint yellow that it's impossible for the human eye to see. This makes any color printout traceable to the machine that printed it. Commonly in use by law enforcement for tracking things like death threats, ransom notes, etc.

Google for "hidden yellow serial number" and find lots of information from reputable sources. First hit I glanced at just now is from PC World [pcworld.com] . Good quote from there, Peter Crean, a senior research fellow at Xerox, says his company's laser printers, copiers and multifunction workstations, such as its WorkCentre Pro series, put the "serial number of each machine coded in little yellow dots" in every printout. The millimeter-sized dots appear about every inch on a page, nestled within the printed words and margins. "It's a trail back to you, like a license plate," Crean says.

No tinfoil hat necessary, this one's for real. Last time I looked this up I ran across a technician that works at one of those in R&D telling how every one of their color copiers has a dedicated board inline in the image processing chain whose only job is to "insert" the serial number into the image stream before it goes to the imager.

Re:i thought scanners won't scan money? (1)

meerling (1487879) | more than 2 years ago | (#39367189)

You'd be amazed how often people have gotten away with passing off photocopied notes on regular paper.
Make it something less than $20, fold, spindle, and mutilate until it looks like a properly stressed/aged bill, and most cashiers will take it even if it has a picture of "Bozo the Clown", and says "Trust in the Force".
Really. I've even seen someone give them a Twee Dollar Bill. (Yes, I said TWEE) Most of the time they take it as a $3, something that's never been in circulation in this country. Of course, she's just playing jokes and gives them real money back as she tells them she wants her Twee Dollar Bill back. Some of them think it's funny, the rest are either embarrassed or confused.

Now mindwhip is talking about a good counterfeit, I'm just talking about what most cashiers will accept out of apathy/stupidity/ignorance/whatever.

Re:i thought scanners won't scan money? (3, Funny)

neokushan (932374) | more than 2 years ago | (#39366977)

Yeah I tried that once, it said something had performed an illegal operation and my whole PC shut down!

Hm... (0)

imagined.by (2589739) | more than 2 years ago | (#39366519)

I thought most scanners refused to scan currency?

Too bad they're trying to make scanning $ illegal (3, Informative)

SirGeek (120712) | more than 2 years ago | (#39366525)

Haven't they found proprietary code/hardware in scanners that obscures images of money ?

I would think that a "law abiding" group like the MPAA/RIAA would report people to the Treasury department for counterfeiting .

Re:Too bad they're trying to make scanning $ illeg (1)

g0bshiTe (596213) | more than 2 years ago | (#39366689)

That assumes someone is dumb enough to do it and send their address on the envelope. I often send stuff that I want to get to a destination with the same return address as the sending address.

Re:Too bad they're trying to make scanning $ illeg (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39366779)

If they claim an mp3 is as valuable as the original then a fuzzy image of money should be the same. I just consider them both a lossy compression.

Re:Too bad they're trying to make scanning $ illeg (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39367005)

Take a picture, surely?

Isn't that technically illegal? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39366527)

Even if you're just screwing around? I thought all scanned money had to have the huge NOT LEGAL TENDER shit on it, otherwise you were breaking the law...

Re:Isn't that technically illegal? (1)

Beorytis (1014777) | more than 2 years ago | (#39366569)

I think you can also enlarge or reduce it significantly to make it obviously fake.

Re:Isn't that technically illegal? (1)

meerling (1487879) | more than 2 years ago | (#39367209)

They always claim they want the BIG MONEY... Let's make it literal !

Valuable Images (5, Funny)

gknoy (899301) | more than 2 years ago | (#39366539)

Could I send them a drawing of a spider instead?

Re:Valuable Images (1)

Lunaritian (2018246) | more than 2 years ago | (#39366767)

Sadly I don't think spiders are valuable enough. But maybe a cow or something? One with just three udders of course, so they can't beat you in digital milk business.

Re:Valuable Images (2)

Crasoose (1621969) | more than 2 years ago | (#39366845)

Make sure you include all 8 legs, they are really greedy.

Re:Valuable Images (2)

rwv (1636355) | more than 2 years ago | (#39367023)

Don't count on getting it back though, if they don't accept it as payment, if what you send is attached an an e-mail. Unlike payment officers at utility companies, the RIAA knows that sending attachments is piracy and *they* only commit piracy when it benefits them.

Re:Valuable Images (1)

Fujisawa Sensei (207127) | more than 2 years ago | (#39367015)

A drawing of a spider from me will cost more than one of their shitty movies. Because I get to set the value for it, not there. Also just like their shitty movies.

Re:Valuable Images (1)

meerling (1487879) | more than 2 years ago | (#39367239)

Then they'll sic the FBI on you for Terrorism, you know how afraid some people are of spider pictures.

Banks do this, sort of. (2)

na1led (1030470) | more than 2 years ago | (#39366555)

When you deposit money in a bank, it's put into digital space. So what's the difference?

Re:Banks do this, sort of. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39366619)

It's not copied, so much as moved. Sure, technically, moving digital matter does copy it first, but the original is being deleted immediately after the move (which, technically, would also be legal for media as well, much like the selling of used cd's/dvd's).

Re:Banks do this, sort of. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39366669)

Plus the actual money isn't even backed by anything valuable.

Re:Banks do this, sort of. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39366761)

When banks do it its legal.

Re:Banks do this, sort of. (2)

theshowmecanuck (703852) | more than 2 years ago | (#39367055)

What is digitized is the accounting ledger, not the money. The record that your money is deposited. Even when you purchase or pay on line, it is still just the ledger. The paper money still exists.

Re:Banks do this, sort of. (1)

xyourfacekillerx (939258) | more than 2 years ago | (#39367077)

At your bank, your "digital space" money copy corresponds to a real world valuable asset. There is a huge difference between that and a scan or photocopy of money.

Just an FYI (4, Informative)

bigredradio (631970) | more than 2 years ago | (#39366579)

You might want to think about it first. http://www.secretservice.gov/money_law.shtml [secretservice.gov]

Re:Just an FYI (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39366671)

Scanned images are not printouts. The summary is misleading. A scan (digital), which they are recommending you send, would not be considered a counterfeit bill.

Re:Just an FYI (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39366691)

According to your link only printed reproductions of currency are illegal.

Re:Just an FYI (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39366703)

It says quite clearly, printed reproductions

Re:Just an FYI (2)

gknoy (899301) | more than 2 years ago | (#39366713)

Printed reproductions, including photographs of paper currency, checks, bonds, postage stamps, revenue stamps, and securities of the United States and foreign governments (except under the conditions previously listed) are violations of Title 18, Section 474 of the United States Code.

If you never print it, does it still violate the code? Something to ask the local treasury department, I guess.

Re:Just an FYI (1)

Amouth (879122) | more than 2 years ago | (#39366833)

"Anyone who manufactures a counterfeit U.S. coin in any denomination above five cents is subject to the same penalties as all other counterfeiters. "

so we can make pennies and nickels all we want????

Re:Just an FYI (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39367087)

I believe it costs more to make pennies and nickels than their face value... so I would say go for it :)

Re:Just an FYI (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39366929)

What would have to be done to make a copy of a bill that is not legally a counterfeit?

Re:Just an FYI (1)

Qzukk (229616) | more than 2 years ago | (#39367041)

So if only people who make counterfeits worth more than a nickel are charged with counterfeiting law, does that mean we should pay the *IAA in scanned pennies?

Really illegal? (1)

Quartus486 (935104) | more than 2 years ago | (#39366603)

You're basically emailing a photo of a bill. Shouldn't be illegal, now should it?

Deliberate misinterpretation (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39366605)

Come on.. just because the MPAA and RIAA consider digital copies [of media] to be just as valuable as the original, it doesn't follow that digital copies of currency will be just as valuable as the original.

The law dictates that digital copies of currency are worthless. It doesn't say so about digital copies of media. This is just a waste of time. Make arguments that matter.

Who cares what the MPAA and RIAA "consider" the worth of digital copies to be. The market knows the truth.

Better not make the copy look too good. (1)

cpu6502 (1960974) | more than 2 years ago | (#39366609)

You'll be accused of counterfeiting.

Of course the best option is to just throw the letter in the trash. I doubt the MPAA/RIAA will come after you, since they are just using a shotgun approach to extort money from the millions of uploaders they have in their database. They are hoping to dupe you into paying $5000. (Like the nigerian lottery scammers.)

Oh and send some real money to the people who deserve it. Like JMS of Babylon 5 or the Writer/Artist of the Walking Dead, because they certainly aren't getting paid by the corporations (somehow these TV shows never show a profit).

Re:Better not make the copy look too good. (4, Informative)

phantomfive (622387) | more than 2 years ago | (#39366667)

Apparently it's ok as long as:

The copy has to be one-sided
The copy has to be the wrong size. It has to be at least 75% smaller or 150% larger than an actual bill
You have to destroy the negatives, graphic files, or “digitized storage mediums” after their final use

INAAL so if you go to jail after following this advice, I'll just laugh at you. But i read it on the internet.

Re:Better not make the copy look too good. (1)

g0bshiTe (596213) | more than 2 years ago | (#39366773)

Anyone that had anything to do with Babylon 5 should be sending me money. Though I do agree with supporting artists that are getting raped by the corporate giants. That being said the remark about Babylon 5 was sarcasm. I think they never show profit cause they have more a cult following. I've been reading Walking Dead long before a show was even talked about.

It's illegal (1)

koan (80826) | more than 2 years ago | (#39366623)

To scan money.

Re:It's illegal (3, Informative)

cplusplus (782679) | more than 2 years ago | (#39366911)

Incorrect, as long as you follow the rules. Rules For Use [rulesforuse.org]

Re:It's illegal (0)

skovnymfe (1671822) | more than 2 years ago | (#39367227)

It's illegal to print money.

Great idea (1)

bws111 (1216812) | more than 2 years ago | (#39366633)

What a bunch of genius's. Now, instead of just being a pirate and having the RIAA & MPAA after you, you can also be a counterfeiter and have the feds after you.

My own currency (1)

ehiris (214677) | more than 2 years ago | (#39366639)

I'll send them my own currency in the form of whatever I feel like it should be (images, sound,...).
According to them, it's as good, if not better than money.

Re:My own currency (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39366815)

Compose a song and send them a recording, then ask for change.

Well... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39366683)

Real currency is just authorized copies of an original, isn't it?

Seems like this goes more to prove the MPAA/RIAA point than it does to defeat it, especially if it gets a bunch of people in trouble for making a bunch of unauthorized too-perfect copies of money.

Think harder, please.

It doesn't have to be a good copy (1)

rjmx (233228) | more than 2 years ago | (#39366701)

Given that the **AA are likely to sue even if the filename sounds like one of their movies/songs, and given that mp3/ogg etc. are lossy codecs, you don't have to send them a scan of a bill at all. Just scrawl "Ten Dollars" on a piece of paper, scan it, and send it in.

That should have exactly the same effect.

Beautiful (1)

s0nicfreak (615390) | more than 2 years ago | (#39366705)

I wish I had thought of paying them in this way when the MPAA sued me.

FTFA (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39366717)

“Now wait,” you say, “isn’t copying money illegal?” Not if you do it right. Reproducing images of money (in the United States at least) is perfectly legal under three conditions:

        The copy has to be one-sided
        The copy has to be the wrong size. It has to be at least 75% smaller or 150% larger than an actual bill
        You have to destroy the negatives, graphic files, or “digitized storage mediums” after their final use

Not a good idea... (1)

Gavin Scott (15916) | more than 2 years ago | (#39366745)

In the US at least it's a federal crime to copy or scan and print (potentially even just scan) US currency, so this is one of those lame things you really don't want to do.

You can end up with a visit from the FBI and potentially even prosecution if someone simply finds your copies in the trash and reports it.

Just fooling around or having no criminal intent probably will not protect you, and the RIAA/MPAA will probably be more than happy to report you if you mail copies to them.

G.

Mark It So It's Obviously Fake (1)

theshowmecanuck (703852) | more than 2 years ago | (#39366777)

Make sure you put a mark on it as well as change the size so people can't mistake it as being real, even if you think it is obvious it is a copy. The secret service (in charge of counterfeiting as well as protecting the pres') doesn't have a sense of humour in these matters.

On a side note, I read a story outlining one of the most successful counterfeiters ever. When they arrested him he was an old man. He'd been printing and passing off one dollar bills and five dollar bills for a few decades before he was caught. Seems his success was because he wasn't greedy only using them for himself and when he needed to. And since the bills weren't large denominations people didn't check them carefully. In the end when they caught him, it also turned out the counterfeit job wasn't even that particularly good. But because of the previous points, no-one noticed till he was quite old. And only then because he hadn't changed the printing job, but the currency had been upgraded/changed a couple times since. The bills looked newly printed but with an old style; that's when people noticed. I remember reading this in a magazine or readers digest or something years ago, otherwise I'd post a link.

Funny! (1)

rwise2112 (648849) | more than 2 years ago | (#39366801)

Funny, but I expect they won't even get it!

Doesn't work (5, Insightful)

Richard_at_work (517087) | more than 2 years ago | (#39366813)

A digital copy of a music file still has inherent value to the recipient, while a copy of a bank note does not - all you are doing is showing them you are as petulant as you consider them to be.

The value of a music file is in the content, not the form of the file while the value of a bank note is in the ability to exchange it for other things, not the art work on the note - copies work fine in one case, and not at all in the other.

Re:Doesn't work (2)

Dan667 (564390) | more than 2 years ago | (#39366881)

the riaa and mpaa refuse to adapt their business model to the current environment. Anytime they want they could adopt a model like Valve's Steam Gaming Service. People behaving as irrationally as the mpaa and riaa is actually a good tactic.

Re:Doesn't work (1)

Oswald McWeany (2428506) | more than 2 years ago | (#39367125)

Anytime they want they could adopt a model like Valve's Steam Gaming Service.

So... I'd have to be connected to the internet to play music- spend more time patching their music distribution service than actually playing music. Reinstall the whole software twice a week in order for it to work. Risk having my credit card stolen from their insecure web-site and have them continually advertise songs I don't want to me.

I'd rather things didn't change. I will buy my CD- rip the music off it and use music from my CD on anything I want to play it on. I'd hate for music to be ruined in the same way that PC gaming has been ruined.

Re:Doesn't work (1)

sydneyfong (410107) | more than 2 years ago | (#39367097)

Depends.

A digital copy of a music file has value to the recipients because they may enjoy the music... or they may not.

A digital copy (photo) of a bank note may have value to the recipients so far as they enjoy the photo... and seriously, does any of us have doubt that the MPAA/RIAA guys enjoy looking at bank notes?

Re:Doesn't work (5, Insightful)

theshowmecanuck (703852) | more than 2 years ago | (#39367111)

It is obviously a symbolic protest, not meant to act as payment. Think of it as abstraction of complaining. Does that help?

Use flash storage! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39366983)

Why send them several printouts of copied money and risk violating some (local) law? Just scan the largest bank note you have and put multiple copies on a small XD card or similar flash drive. After all, they value digital copies to be just as valuable as the original!

Im in the process of preparing mine, holding 1.000.000 copies of the same 1000 dollar bill. "Here's one billion dollars. This should be more than enough to pay off any debt regarding any digital copies I make for the next 130 years. Sincerely, Anonymous"

Not even close (1)

xyourfacekillerx (939258) | more than 2 years ago | (#39366991)

Users of download services such as file upload sites or Usenet or P2P services like SLSK do often pay for the privelage of being able to download copies of original IP like music, tv episodes and movies. This proves that there is an intrinsic value to such copies; they can be exchanged as goods for money or other goods and/or services. But a digital copy of cash cannot be exchanged in such manner. It's becoming increasingly embarassing for me to be a programmer when I have to be associated with moron ideas like this one by default.

More Accurate (2)

trongey (21550) | more than 2 years ago | (#39367025)

Just send them a digital copy of the copyrighted material. It has exactly the same value as the one you kept.
Heck, send them two or thee copies. That way they make a bigger profit. They'll like that.

Conspiracy Theory (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39367051)

One day we'll find out that the US Postal Service and Cartridges, Etc were actually behind the whole maneuver.

Slash dot comments (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39367159)

I enjoy reading interesting comments. Unfortunately interesting comments are rare.

Sometimes I think people might come through. Sometimes I think I can predict what the comments will look like. Sometimes I have questions about the news story that I hope I can figure out with the comments.

In this case, no dice.

First of all, I think digital copies are worth less than the physical product. That's probably the message they were trying to get through. But I couldn't even confirm that because the comments are so utterly pointless.

I thought the best thing to do was ignore them (1)

mark-t (151149) | more than 2 years ago | (#39367221)

Not that long ago, there was another slashdot article asking about people who had been sued by the RIAA... several responses admitted as much, but what I found intriguing was that *EVERY* person who said that they just ignored them when they get a letter, and did not try to respond in any way, did not ever have anything come of it beyond the initial threats.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?