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!

LucasFilms suing 'net Pirates

CmdrTaco posted more than 15 years ago | from the getting-legal-on-your-ass dept.

Star Wars Prequels 211

Tony Garcia writes "Apparently, LucasFilms was not happy to find out that PM videos were being distributed over the 'net; they hired a mean team of badass lawyers to take care. The story at SiliconValley News. "

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

Re:not too happy... (1)

HiThere (15173) | more than 15 years ago | (#1778802)

But one needs to recover one's investment if one is to create the next piece of art. Cartooning can be done cheaply. Movies are a bit more expensive.

Still, you are free to create any art you wish, and give it away if you choose, or sell it for what you choose (if someone else is willing to pay).

It's fine to think of the ego gratification that one would get from creating a work of art, but it may be expensive to create, and in that case, somebody ends up paying for it.

Re:But is this "News for Nerds"? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 15 years ago | (#1778803)

Oh great one, please teach me all the NEAT obsolete stuff you learned from the 70s hackers test

you are so ereet it hurts me to think how much better you are than me

LONG LIVE EGOTISTICAL REET-GEEKS!

Re:Lucas shouldn't care (1)

bliss (21836) | more than 15 years ago | (#1778823)

Some of your arguments were what the theaters used early in the game when TV first came out in the 1950's and was first getting adapted. In essence what happened was the quality of TV was crappy at first but was thought to be dangerous. The same reasoning could be applied to a story about war and the real thing. "Well with real war, you can actually get hurt by bullets have blood and brains spilled on your shirt, stand in a trench, and have a miserable time not for 10 minutes reading it but for a couple of years fighting in it what could be better?"

Re:The article was a bit unrealistically placating (1)

ViGe (49356) | more than 15 years ago | (#1778824)

What if I live in Cuba or Iraq and have a web page with the movie? Would it be possible for someone to prevent that from being released? How big is this thing anyway? And where could it be retrieved from? I can't think of many ISP's or anyone who just has an extra 25Gb to spare for just one file.
Normal vcd movies take about 1.3GB - so no need for your 25GB HDD.. but basically you're right, you can't get such a space from most ISP's easily.
--

Stopping the Flow of Information (2)

Mentat21 (36271) | more than 15 years ago | (#1778825)

I wonder how the author of the article sees the ability to threaten people into stopping the flow of any kind of information as a Good Thing (tm). If anyone with enough money (or anyone theoritically) can accomplish this, then there really is something to be concerned about. What if I said that I thought that the author's article should not be posted on the web because it was counter to ideals that I held. Then I went out and called his or her ISP and threatened them in order to get them to shut down the web site. I've accomplished the author's goal of removing information that I'm opposed to, but I've also violated the basic right of free speech. Now I'm not saying that piracy is free speech. I'm saying that the generalizations made in the article lead to some, IMHO, bad conclusions.

A long time ago, on a Web far away... (5)

RSevrinsky (10305) | more than 15 years ago | (#1778826)

What's absolutely clear from this exercise is that you can really make it uncomfortable for people who do irritating things on the Internet. And the way to do it could be a lot like what we see here.... So, the next time someone tells you -- `You just can't stop information from being passed around the Internet!` -- think twice. We can stop most of it with a little determination.

Episode I (part b)

THE NET MENACE

Turmoil has engulfed the Internet. The wholesale pirating of MP3s and lousy movies on outlying websites is in dispute.

Hoping to resolve the matter with a blockade of deadly lawsuits, the greedy LucasFilm Federation has stopped all Internet traffic to the small ISPs....

- Richie

I agree (1)

chocolatetrumpet (73058) | more than 15 years ago | (#1778827)

If these lawyers have done such a fine job keeping this material off the net, then why do most of my friends who are barely computer literate have copies of Phantom Menace!?

Re:RIGHT On! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 15 years ago | (#1778828)

I suppose you prefer the Babylon 5 crap?

Re:RIGHT On! (1)

bliss (21836) | more than 15 years ago | (#1778829)

Simple what is implied is that it just dosn't matter if it gets bootleged at all since it just sucks. I would get one right now it I could. Hmm.. If I leave tonight I can go to China and purtchess a copy in Bejing??? Hmm... Bootlegging.

Re:not too happy... (1)

Milican (58140) | more than 15 years ago | (#1778830)

"But then again, I've never been much of a capitalist."

Hey at least you came out and said it, and you do have a good point about people liking the movie so much they downloaded it. However, the beauty of capitalism is that it rewards those who give what society wants. I don't think Star Wars would exist as it is today if there wasn't any money in it. If George Lucas makes a heap from Star Wars good for him. I think he deserves it.

No capitalism isn't fair (its more laize faire.. hehe), but it works and the US proves it.

JOhn

Re:RIGHT On! (0)

bliss (21836) | more than 15 years ago | (#1778831)

No from what I saw of Babylon 5 (very little) the whole concept sucked. Letting a group of idiots try and start a civil war with earth is reprehensible best. I am a star trek person myself.

Breathless chase scene (3)

mackga (990) | more than 15 years ago | (#1778832)

Did anyone else find this article particularly lame? I mean, this quote:

"But these were no ordinary lawyers. They had a second whole computer system ready to press their case. The bootlegger ran to another Web site, and the lawyers followed. Then the Internet Service Provider stepped in and shut the bootlegger down."

Gives me an oddly unsettling picture of caped-crusader 'net-savvy, cyber-clued geeky lawyers out to save the world (wide web) from the bad ol' Internet pirates in thier skull&crossbones black matte t-shirts. Jezzum. Makes me want to retch.

woah (0)

erreeet (71555) | more than 15 years ago | (#1778839)

the're comin to getca!

RIGHT On! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 15 years ago | (#1778841)

They should too, there was a lot of hard work put into that movie, people shouldnt be ripping it off



Are you looking at my first post? you must be, its the only one here.

not too happy... (1)

uberfunk (60264) | more than 15 years ago | (#1778843)

Apparently, LucasFilms was not happy to find out that PM videos were being distributed over the 'net; they hired a mean team of badass lawyers to take care...

Well, I was "not too happy" with the general suck of the new movie... can I sue for that?

Seriously, though... I've always felt than art should be done for arts' sake. Art as expression, not as market campaigns, will still surely capture our imaginations. Given the same state of integrity, it will surely serve us well. (neil peart) I'm opposed to the idea of a movie which can make the gratutious sums that this one did... however, given the society we live in, the laws must be obeyed.

All I can say is that if I ever made a movie, I'd be happy that people were taking the time to download it on modems... that's a sign that I made a good piece of art.

But then again, I've never been much of a capitalist.

Good for him! (1)

afeinberg (9848) | more than 15 years ago | (#1778844)

I, for one, pay my $4.50 to see TPM. It took so much time and effort to put together, that ripping it off would be a smack in the face to all who love Star Wars, by not giving them the compensation for their wonderful work.
Andrew G. Feinberg

The article was a bit unrealistically placating (3)

WSmith (69317) | more than 15 years ago | (#1778846)

toward the masses. It seems to want to provide a convenient security blanket for those who want to believe that the flow of information can truly be controlled on the net. The fact is that it can be controlled somewhat on the web, but certainly not on the net as a whole. The people sending things back and forth just need to practice a little more ingenuity than setting up a public web page.
From what I read, said lawyers were not monitoring DCC bots on IRC nor FTP sites that act as online dumping grounds for such files (should I say FiLeZ :). ) Yes life can be made more inconvenient for the less clever of the ripper kids out there, but information will still be tranferred.

Was it just me, or... (1)

generic kewl tech re (53435) | more than 15 years ago | (#1778849)

was there anybody else who followed the link, read the page, and thought "Nice intro, where's the story?"

People rip off ST:TPM.
George Lucas gets pissed, hires a bunch of lawyers, and threatens lawsuits.
You can do it too!

One more thing. The last part of the blurb pointed out that anyone can stop privacy violations and infringements on the Net.
As long as you can afford a team of top lawyers, that is...


Realistically (2)

Waav (33401) | more than 15 years ago | (#1778851)

So Lucas' lawyers sent out cease and desist orders to a couple hundred bootleggers. If they (or this Moira Gunn who wrote the article) think that what Lucas managed to do is control the flow of information on the internet they are dreaming.

If you want a copy of TPM you will be able to find it on the net or on irc and there ain't a damn thing that Lucas can do about it.

To quote Gunn "So, the next time someone tells you -- `You just can't stop information from being passed around the Internet!` -- think twice. We can stop most of it with a little determination."
Ms. Gunn you obviously have no clue exactly how the internet works so don't try to spout off some Lucasian propoganda which has no basis in reality.

Re:RIGHT On! (1)

jplan34 (58271) | more than 15 years ago | (#1778853)

Your logic is completely and totally wrong. You are saying that because a lot of time was spent on it, THAN you shouldn't rip it off. The unstated part of this is that if not much work was put into it, than go ahead and rip it off. WRONG!! It shouldn't be ripped off because it is illegal. That and that alone is the reason. We can have a whole seperate debate about whether or not this law should be obeyed or not, but my point here is that your logic is seriously flawed.

Why bother? (2)

Phelan (30485) | more than 15 years ago | (#1778855)

Everybody that has ever looked at any of the ripped copies of SWE1 will notice that they will not get the whole emotional feeling without having seen it on the big screen. So everybody that took the time to download it was surely disappointed and went on to watch it on the big screen. So there is no loss there. Most people that are likely to d/l the movie have watched it more than once I would bet.
So why would he bother? Why would he bother with such court costs? He is doing nobody a favor, especially not his image in the public.
The only thing I can see hurt is the VHS and DVD sales but since Lucas wont have them released for a long time from now its his own fault...

Re:not too happy... (1)

bliss (21836) | more than 15 years ago | (#1778856)

It's really not leize faire (hint the Sherman Anti-trust act). That stopped happening in the 1880's or there abouts.

There seems to be some confusion (1)

Darth Hubris (26923) | more than 15 years ago | (#1778857)

A car speeds down a residential neighborhood at three times the speed limit. A policeman steps out in front of the car and holds his hand up. Same situation, only a forty-ton rock falls from the sky and lands in front of the car.

Ability and authority may be, and often times are, two different things.

Re:Why bother? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 15 years ago | (#1778858)

IMO Lucas only has himself to blame. Star Wars came out in the UK only a couple of weeks ago, several months after the rest of the worl had seen it, reviewed it, dissected it, discovered it was crap. The only way I could see it without waiting so long was to watch a pirate video cd version. OK, the quality was shit, but needs must ...

And yes, I did go and see it on the big screen when it finally arrived

gotta love the *cyberpatrol* angle (1)

brianof (56469) | more than 15 years ago | (#1778859)

god, everyone from the guardian angels to jerry fallwell has been trying to do this ever since the everyman's conception of the internet widened beyond the myopic view provided by aol.
the only thing that frightens me about that entire article is the arrogant and overconfident tone that the whole thing takes on.

sorta off the point, i don't think that lucas will ever make a movie worth seeing. the whole savant genius thing got buried under a pile of money and a busload of fratboys with boba fett tattoos.

Re:Um, no.. (1)

bliss (21836) | more than 15 years ago | (#1778860)

Correct the only reason he makes any money of this is that he just decided to wait for 10 + years to release the next installment to this. He could have put something like Barney meeting Luke Skywalker and it would sell.

Re:Get in the game, people... (1)

bliss (21836) | more than 15 years ago | (#1778861)

A gang of lawyers. What kind of grafitti would they employ? Business cards? Attack people with brief cases insead of guns?

Re:The article was a bit unrealistically placating (2)

Trepidity (597) | more than 15 years ago | (#1778862)

You are correct, that if you lived in a non-US-friendly country, it'd be difficult for LucasArts to do anything. However, most non-US-friendly countries don't (yet) have much bandwidth.

The VCD of a movie (MPEG compression) is usually around 1.2 gigabytes or so. An ASF version (which is lower quality) is usually around 300 or 400 megabytes.

I agree, it is not easy to find space on an ISP for these files to be hosted. However, there are millions of people with T1 connections provided by their universities, and millions more with cablemodems or ADSL lines, so while there is no central place for obtaining pirated movies, there are thousands of 10-20 user FTPs and DCC bots that provide them.

flame-bait (1)

Malo (32623) | more than 15 years ago | (#1778863)

That article is pure flamebait, the idiot pundit who wrote it, has no clue about the issues, or the technology involved.

Companies that react with the legal department first, well. Shows that they have a limited comprehension of things besides torts, and suits.

Re:But is this "News for Nerds"? (2)

bliss (21836) | more than 15 years ago | (#1778864)

I know I could sell anything if I had enough money (say like Bill Gates) in America. Even some old senile man sitting in a chair swearing and mumbling incoherently would sell with the right advertising.

Re:What does Lucas have to lose here? (1)

KevCo (2333) | more than 15 years ago | (#1778865)

Do they really think that even the lamest of the "31337" are going to waste their time downloading over a gigabyte of movie where "use the force" sounds like "OORGH A WORTTSHK!"

Well I haven't seen any of the early versions that were released but the latest screener version (with foreign subtitles) is very high quality. At least that's what I hear 'cause I certainly wouldn't violate any copyright laws.

As far as wasting time... I don't see how it wastes time any more than distributed.net or seti@home. With a cable modem and forte agent it's pretty painless to d/l huge files from usenet. Just point and click then minimize it and go about your business.

Re:But is this "News for Nerds"? (1)

Syslevel (69599) | more than 15 years ago | (#1778874)

I'm afraid you are not a worthy vessel, oh little one.

heh

Sorry to tell ya (1)

matar (73070) | more than 15 years ago | (#1778875)

But lets get real here. We're all either geeks, pirates or both. The VCD scene has been getting bigger and bigger (The Matrix seemed to kick it off) for months now. Star Wars hit the internet just under 2 days after is public release in the US. I have personally seen over 5 different copies going around the latest of which features surround-sound and widescreen. Im not saying this is a good thing, Im just saying its a fact. If poor Lucas thinks he can win where music companies for months and software companies for years have lost... he's got another thing coming. In 5 minutes online Ive seen the matrix, american pie, star wars, the blair witch project, the haunting, and 2 other movies Ive never heard of online available for download in both asf and mpeg format. VCD's online are here to stay, not to sound like a pirate supporter, But get over it!

Re:RIGHT On! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 15 years ago | (#1778876)

How the hell is that reprehensible _at_ best?

What the hell are you talking about? Instead of just spouting off that everything stinks/sucks/is stupid. How about you back up just one of those comments with some sort of rationalization?

I have no problem with what you're saying. But you're communicating like a preschooler.

Re:A long time ago, on a Web far away... (1)

bliss (21836) | more than 15 years ago | (#1778877)

Staring Bill Gates as the evil emperor in black (who is that guy supposed to be anyway?)

Re:Why bother? (2)

dillon_rinker (17944) | more than 15 years ago | (#1778878)

$6 to see a movie that cost $1e8 to make strikes me as an incredibly good deal. What I don't like is paying $1.50 for carbonated sugar water or $3.00 for grease-covered puffed grain.

Re:RIGHT On! (0)

bliss (21836) | more than 15 years ago | (#1778879)

That most of the themes in the above mentioned show lack in what could be termed ethical grounding about a leader and the nature of the universe. If one wishes to have a strong presence in space usually one does not incite a rebellion on the homeworld or pick a fight with them at any time.

Re:The article was a bit unrealistically placating (1)

gid (5195) | more than 15 years ago | (#1778880)

shhh!! don't tell them how to really find it.... :)

Addendum (1)

generic kewl tech re (53435) | more than 15 years ago | (#1778881)



And not even then, apparently.

First drink coffee, then read /.

Re:Get in the game, people... (1)

ChazeFroy (51595) | more than 15 years ago | (#1778882)

This is so typical of people who think the Internet is just Email and the WWW...they aren't even looking on Efnet and Undernet for these things. I don't think I've even attempted to download phil3z off webpages because it's totally unreliable...I always prefer to grab my tarballs from FTP sites because it's faster and ncftp can resume in case something pukes.

If these lawyers are serious about cracking down on VCD trading, they should hire some 14-year old kids for minimum wage to spend 8 hours a day on IRC and write down the domains of the FTP servers...and knowing lawyers, they probably realize this but opt to get paid the big bucks for doing relatively nothing.

evil necessity (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 15 years ago | (#1778893)

My room-mate downloaded TPM and burned 2 cd with it. The copy is not bad, around VHS quality. We did this little side-project at the lab driven by the curiosity to watch the movie. We would die if we had to wait until 30 September... Obviously Mr. Lucas is not going to lose money on us (and the zillions that borrowed the cd) because we plan to do a pilgrimage to watch it as soon as it opens. Even knowing the movie really sucks... We were just forced to do it by the satanic forces that control Hollywood marketing. It was well worth the eternal damnation from the copyright enforcers, just to watch the pod race on the *borrowed* faculty video wall and surround stereo...
I don't think I'll do it again soon. It was an exception, as I never buy or hunt for bootleg stuff. I respect the work of people and will pay for it when I want to enjoy it. But agonising in this wait would have been too much for me.

Antonius Coward

Re:not too happy... (2)

tallpaul (1010) | more than 15 years ago | (#1778894)

You said:

No capitalism isn't fair (its more laize faire.. hehe), but it works and the US proves it.


Oh you are so so so wrong. Lets look at your definition of the word "works." Who does it work for? The gigantic corporations which can give huge contributions to campaign funds to control politics, which can hire high-caliber lawyers to control the law.Sure yeah, it "works" for them, but what about the other guy -- the individual who gets taxed on gross income, verses the business who gets taxed only on profit. The small business which has none of the legal benifits and incentives that large businesses do. Nothing that is "not fair" can work. It may *seem* to work, but that is all dependant on your perspective.

In the Middle ages, feudalism "seemed" to work for kings, queens and propertied gentry. In all less than 5% of the population. It "worked" for many hundreds of years. But for the majority of the population it did not even close to work.

I think if you asked "everyone", the majority would say "yes, capitalism is working." The thing is that unlike the medieval peasants, they _don't even know_ that they are getting screwed by the system. That as a wage earner a person barely makes enough to stay even and in an industrialized society which has capacity to produce far more food and goods than are needed, the average wage earner still has to take out a *huge* loan to buy a house, and even a vehicle and get raped for years by interest.

Capitalism does not work.

Barney... (2)

Wakko Warner (324) | more than 15 years ago | (#1778895)

"He could have put something like Barney meeting Luke Skywalker and it would sell."

That might have been *preferable* to Jar Jar.

- A.P.
--


"One World, One Web, One Program" - Microsoft Promotional Ad

Bunch of Whining Warez Puppies (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 15 years ago | (#1778896)

Look people: copying a movie is THEFT. George Lucas made the movie. The movie belongs to George Lucas. If George Lucas doesn't want the movie distributed on the internet, that is George Lucas's decision.

Even Richard Stallman, the Saint of Free Software, believes that it is okay to copyright and protect entertainment.

Most of the comments I see here are completely juvenile. "It's not FAIR that George Lucas not just give away the movie he spent millions of dollars making! He is a jerk! He should just give it to me!"

Grow up.

Re:But is this "News for Nerds"? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 15 years ago | (#1778897)

What a loser.

I don't know anything about the different families of TTL, but I bet I'm a hell of a lot more of a geek than you. Any idiot can memorize stupid facts about hardware. Just like any idiot can memorize pi to a thousand digits, but that doesn't make them a geek.

Re:not too happy... (1)

JasonB (15304) | more than 15 years ago | (#1778898)

You might want to think of the US Economics system (which we will loosely call 'capitalism') as just one economic meme. Each country has a different (some more so than others) economic system. It just so happens that the meme called 'capitalism' has been wildly more successful than any other that has been invented to date. Feudalism: Dead. Socialism: Mostly dead.

This capitalism meme has mutated, as do all good memes, as it has propogated throughout the meme-pool of economic systems. This is why the US variant is different from Germany's, etc.

If some new economic meme (let's call it 'foobarism') were to be created, it would spread/replicate to the extent that it was more adaptable and virulent than the other existing memes. The upshot is that if foobarism were 'better' (in the memetic sense), it would spread and overtake capitalism in due time.

So if you're so sure that Capitalism does not work, you just need to invent a new economic meme, call is foobarism, and then hope that it is more virulent than capitalism. If your meme is better, it will become the dominant meme, and all of us poor capitalist bastards will have to deal with it.

-jason

P.S. You would appear to be attending a University that is (1) private, and (2) founded by two entreprenurial capitalist pigs named John Boynton and Ichabod Washburn. I suggest you transfer to a state-funded, publicly managed university as soon as possible.

ISPs Can't Handle the Traffic Re:Usenet (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 15 years ago | (#1778899)

One problem with the amount of material on Usenet is that there is so much of it that ISPs just can't handle it. My ISP for example has a full newsfeed but purges the binary groups every 24 hours to avoid overwhelming its news servers. This is fine for .jpg and .wav files but for the big bulky stuff, it can be pretty inconvenient. So I can download MP3s and MPGs but half the time, they'll get purged in mid download.

That still hasn't stopped me from downloaded a couple of hundred MBs of the stuff.

Re:Hypocritical Lucas (2)

werdna (39029) | more than 15 years ago | (#1778900)

"spread so more people could see it."

Are you kidding? TPM is one of the most-seen films in the history of the world! Indeed, probably among the most-seen works of authorship of all-time. Still further, I doubt you can get to more than a few digits by counting the number of people who would be capable of obtaining an internet copy who have not already seen it at least once in a theatre.

Exposure to his art is not George Lucas' problem. He has that problem licked, and it is not at all apparent to me that any free distribution would accomplish as much or more widespread interest than his proprietary closed model. It would appear that the IP/market regime is doing just fine in terms of satisfying his concerns for his art so far as distribution is concerned.

Make no mistake, this art costs money to make. But for the astronomical revenues the work can produce, it would not have been produced.

I think everyone that went to see the movie... (1)

smkndrkn (3654) | more than 15 years ago | (#1778901)

for $9.25 should receive a free copy since it was so bad. I personally think they made plently of money on the movie...what is the difference if a few hundred/(thousand) people have a crappy copy with bad sound and peoples heads poking into view from the row in front of the filmer...it isn't going to take any money away from the movie. If you see the bootleg and like it your going to see it anyway because you want the good sound and better visuals...if you don't like the bootleg you won't go see it. Think of it more like a "try it before you buy it" deal. After all the movie did blow...I'm sorry I spent MY money. Jar Jar must die

"We can stop this..." (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 15 years ago | (#1778902)

What's absolutely clear from this exercise is that you can really make it uncomfortable for people who do irritating things on the Internet...So, the next time someone tells you -- `You just can't stop information from being passed around the Internet!` -- think twice. We can stop most of it with a little determination.

...and a pocket like George Lucas'. How much would I have to pay a fleet of badass lawyers to hunt down my e-mail/name/phone all over the web?

a bit? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 15 years ago | (#1778903)

I would say a bit more than a bit wouldn't you? If I remember correctly finding the Matrix was easier on some silly "hotline" thing for windows (essentialy an IRC rip off from what I saw) As all of these sites were passworded they wouldn't find anything unless these lawyers were good social engineers. While I think hotline is a stupid proprietary interface I am sure IRC has the same level of movie trading. I bet these folks didn't even know about the lawyers. While I don't believe in ripping off movie makers I also think $8 is a bit rediculas for a movie. I jsut don't see them all that often.

Re:not too happy... (1)

cookd (72933) | more than 15 years ago | (#1778904)

I suppose I'll get flamed for this. And it it somewhat off topic (how do we get off on these subjects??). Oh well.

Sure, capitalism isn't perfect. And depending on your definition of "works" it may or may not work. (However, even those who are "just scraping by" in the United States do better than about 90% of the rest of the world.) But as long as most people are mostly honest and until everyone in the world can be depended on to be completely honest, nothing else is going to work nearly as well.

When society is perfect and everyone is honest, some "shared wealth" program would probably be the best way to go. Unfortunately, this probably won't happen anytime soon. And when it has been attempted in the past, generally a few dishonest people run off with the spoils.

When most people are fairly honest, capitalism generally works pretty well, and I haven't seen anything that works better.

When society is completely corrupt and dishonest, some domineering economic strategy is necessary to protect people from each other. That is when things get bad. I would venture to say that we are headed in this direction with more and more lawsuits, antitrust actions, etc.

Anyway, just my 2c. I don't claim to be an expert, but I'm thankful for what I have, and my discussions with people from foreign countries have reinforced this opinion.

Re:Downloading... (1)

toolie (22684) | more than 15 years ago | (#1778905)

I think you are completely wrong. I'm pretty sure most of the people who downloaded the movie did so because they LIKED it. It gives them something to watch while we have to wait for a year or whatever between the time it leaves the theatres and shows up on DVD/VHS. I would also guess that the same people who download it are going to buy it when it comes out on DVD/VHS. The people who wanted to see it first, saw it in the theatres. The people who didn't like the crappy first release, would probably just download the newer, widescreen version.

Downloading movies now a days is a lot quicker and easier than ever before. As much as people don't want to admit it, I think its here to stay.

Re:senile man sitting in a chair swearing (1)

Shadarr (11622) | more than 15 years ago | (#1778906)

I'd pay to see that--bitter old people rule. Note the swearing woman in Lake Placid.

However, it isn't totally about throwing money at advertising. Lucas is a marketing genius, far better than he is a film maker. It's unfortunate that a lot of people confuse the two.


Using Microsoft software is like having unprotect sex.

PMS (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 15 years ago | (#1778907)

Frankly, phantom menace was so incredibly overrated, overhyped and ended up being such an overall piece of crap and waste of my money, I find it almost difficult to believe someone would want to pirate it. And it serves Lucas right. The man sometimes sounds as though he is the second coming. I mean really, Phantom Menace sucked. Lucas should be happy that there is interest in it at all. And isn't the man supposed to be forward thinking?

Huh. (2)

biya (15095) | more than 15 years ago | (#1778908)

This is lovely. Too bad there wasn't an article there after all that lavicious worship of Lucasarts lawyers. Pirates of the stripe that take in cameras to movies and then sell the tapes are less than ethical, but lawyers will always be somewhere down there with them.

Choice quotes from the article:

"The lawyers actually got organized back in April. They started out by warning some 700 Internet Service Providers they would be held responsible for anyone offering bootleg copies on their services."

In other words, in a typical corporate lawyer maneuver, they threatened and hassled a good number of people/ISPs who probably never engaged in piracy of SW:TPM or presented resistance to Lucasarts, now or later.

"But these were no ordinary lawyers. They had a second whole computer system ready to press their case."

This doesn't make a shred of sense. Perhaps she meant they had another IP to come in from? (Probably just something caught up in techie-jargon-to-journalist translation.)

"In the end, some 300 Internet Web sites were shut down and hundreds more individuals withdrew their offers to sell stolen copies. All in all, it was a great success."

Until site #301 opened up somewhere in a former Eastern Bloc nation for free (this is a possible EXAMPLE). Of course it was a great success - one doesn't tell one's clients otherwise, epsecially if they happend to be a one Mr. Lucas. This is just a publicity statement.

"Why not have a `Cyber Patrol` which is constantly vigilant, watching the World Wide Web?"

Of course. Those of us who are law-abiding citizens have nothing to hide, right? *shudder*

"So, the next time someone tells you -- `You just can't stop information from being passed around the Internet!` -- think twice. We can stop most of it with a little determination."

Pirates get what they deserve, especially if they sell their stolen wares, but that line gives me the creeps. How would we like it if that quote came from Louis Freeh, let alone some corporate lawyer?

Again, it appears mainstream press and corporate lawyers do not understand the concept of information: once it's out, it's out, regardless of legality or origin. (Or regardless of accuracy for that matter...)

Re:The article was a bit unrealistically placating (1)

zaw (40348) | more than 15 years ago | (#1778920)

You can also get it from news groups too..

Its about Average Joe! (1)

rshah (29912) | more than 15 years ago | (#1778921)

The point of here is not that you can totally stop the information from flowing, but by aggressively policing the net, you can stop the average web surfing person from easily downloading the information

The other point I would like to make is that ISPs are probably the next ones to feel the heat. If they are notified there is a violation, they are supposed to "monitor" that user to ensure that they don't put up the infringing material.
Also I bet after a few ISPs spend a couple of thousands or tens of thousands losing a court case, they will quickly shut down any infringing material (and unfortunately they will probably start shutting down people for the weakest reasons, look at whats happened to anonymous postings)

Good for George (4)

substrate (2628) | more than 15 years ago | (#1778922)

Copyright violation is copyright violation. George Lucas is using legal means to slap the wrists of little kiddies who distribute property he holds a copyright on. Good for him. It won't really work but its amazing so many people hold it against him.

If I tomorrow grab the source tree for Linux, strip out all that nasty copyright information and redistribute it sans license (or maybe under my own license) hoards of screaming Free Software zealots would beat down my door bearing torches and rightfully so.

The success or lack of success of the object who's copyright is being violated doesn't make a difference except in the minds of the deadbeats who think everything everywhere should be free regardless of the authors intent.

Is violating the GPL on Linux any more ethical now than it was say 4 years ago when it was less successful?

I got a copy of the Phantom Menace vcd and... (1)

Roofio (55806) | more than 15 years ago | (#1778923)

I certainly don't feel I'm ripping George Lucas off. I've seen the movie in the theater seven times at $7 a pop. Each time, I brought my girlfriend. Sometimes I would bring other friends along too. I always payed. This adds up to over $100 for his movie. I plan on getting the dvd and vhs movies when they come out. I've spent an assload of money on merchandise. Also, the movie isn't even in the theater here anymore so if I want to see it, this is pretty much the only way unless I'm in the mood for driving for a few hours.

What about hotline? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 15 years ago | (#1778924)

I saw TPM available for download on hotline just the other day. The wasn't good enough in my opinion to spend hours doing on a 56k modem though.

Re:Why bother? Heres why... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 15 years ago | (#1778926)

Get a decent video card with tv-out and a good SB card... plug it into you home entertainment system and watch it on that 50" screen..... As often as you like.

Whining studio supporters? :) (Was: Whining Warez) (1)

blocked (10071) | more than 15 years ago | (#1778928)


An anonymous user wrote:
Most of the comments I see here are completely juvenile. "It's not FAIR that George Lucas not just give away the movie he spent millions of dollars making! He is a jerk! He should just give it to me!"
Hehe. And here you are, whining, "It's not FAIR that warez puppies can rip movies. It's THEFT. It's George Lucas' decision whether the movie will be distributed on the internet [sic]."

Actually, if it were George Lucas' decision, the movie wouldn't be getting distributed on the Internet. I guess we'll all have to live with that. ;)

I'm not an entertainment ripper myself; I don't like the (admittedly unlikely) downside of possibly getting caught by lawyers with an axe to grind. But I'm not sure there is any significant ethical content to the assertion that our bloated intellectual property system deserves a groundswell of support.

Re:The article was a bit unrealistically placating (2)

Black Parrot (19622) | more than 15 years ago | (#1778929)

> It seems to want to provide a convenient security blanket for those who want to believe that the flow of information can truly be controlled on the net.

That may be in our best interests. If the masses knew how slippery information really is in the net, they might have the politicos step in and actually do something about it.

Re:They must not have seen the screener then... (1)

Xkill_ (66601) | more than 15 years ago | (#1778932)

this is the coolest tag-line i have seen all day. oh wait back to the post... i dont think that stopping piracy etc, etc will ever happen.
1). there are too many people willing to pirate/steal intellectual property.
2). software/music/video are entirely overpriced.
3). humans dont have any morals (especially Americans).

no matter how hard you try to stop them humans will continue to steal, now you may be able to put the axe down onto the necks of some of these big distributors, but i can tell you right now there is no way in hell that you will ever stop friends sharing info/software/mp3/vcd with friends, and let me tell you; everybody has about 3 barrels of friends.

so go ahead and stop the big distributors they are stupid for trying to put up such big sites anyways, but you will never stop the public from this theft with lawsuits. the issue is much deeper, and only education, understanding, and tolerance will bring the theft of intellectual property to a halt.



Usenet (2)

KevCo (2333) | more than 15 years ago | (#1778939)

I always think it odd when people talk about the problems of stuff like this (ie porn, warez, mp3, bootleg movies, etc) being on the web. It would seem to me that the bandwidth concerns along with the risk would make websites impractical.

OTOH there are tons (er, I mean gigs) of this material available on usenet. I know that a very high quality MPEG of TPM was just posted last week (in addition to the lower-grade copies that have been around for some time). Not that I would download it of course. I just happened to notice that it was there. Really.

On a completely unrelated topic. Does anyone know how to "overburn" a CD 'cause I've got a 750MB file that I'd like to move off of my HD.

Lucas... (1)

Rabbins (70965) | more than 15 years ago | (#1778940)

I am continuously amazed at how much of a control-freak Lucas is. That man is so anal retentive it is amazing. I am actually shocked that he never did take Francis Ford Coppola's advice and start a new religion based upon the idea of "The Force".

Re:Good for him! (1)

Shafik (29058) | more than 15 years ago | (#1778941)

Okay just a bit of perspective here. First of all no one is not going to see it in the movies because it is out on the net. So the IMHO ridiculous argument that they lose money is nothing more then air and warm at that. A good point though it how much money did they spend going through this whole process? So they spent money toooo? Stop losing money they are not really losing? As well nothing prevent people from hiding till the coast is clear and I am sure they don't want to spend the money to monitor forever. Also I would like to seem then sue outside of the US. I dunno I think companies are losing money because they try so hard to stop this stuff when if they just ignored it they could go on raking in the money and everyone would be happy.

Let me add... (2)

uberfunk (60264) | more than 15 years ago | (#1778942)

This is, of course, NO excuse for piracy. Although I do think it is sad that we live in a society which demeans art by making it a commodity, I will respect those laws. I am not trying to justify film piracy here... only pointing out how sad it is that there is a price on viewing art.

Creativity and inspiration should be (and can be (and is, if you are childish enough :))) free.

Get in the game, people... (2)

cswan (6058) | more than 15 years ago | (#1778944)

``Phantom Menace'' is not the only film to be peddled on the Internet. Several publications have reported that ``The Matrix'' and ``Shakespeare in Love'' were among the films that could be found in recent weeks.

These guys are really out of the scene if they think that these were the only movies being moved around two weeks ago. Shakespeare? Um, didn't that come out almost a year ago???


``This was cutting-edge stuff,'' McMahon said, noting that the law firm staff worked around the clock, seven days a week for much of May and June scouting for pirates.


Achieving that required some serious cybersleuthing, McMahon said, though he declined to provide any technical details. Those are trade secrets, the lawyer said.


Gosh, wish we were all privy to those 'trade secrets.' He sure is smart.

There were certain spots that they would regularly patrol. ``You have to know the dark street corners of the Internet -- the bad neighborhoods,'' said Neel Chatterjee, another Orrick, Herrington lawyer who worked on the case.


Oooh...the 'dark street corners' of The Internet. Thank god those lawyers are patrolling the bad places for us, and making The Internet safe for everyone...

Re:RIGHT On! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 15 years ago | (#1778946)

Sorry, you're making an assumption not supported by the original statement. Now, if he'd said, "If and ONLY if they put alot of time and work into it...," then your statement would be correct.

Put the original statement into an if-then situation, with no else specified, there's no statement one way of the other about what happens when the if condition is not met.

Here's the real problem (1)

mplex (19482) | more than 15 years ago | (#1778948)

It wasn't a great success. They got the people distributing this thing publicly. There is the whole world of people who do it behind smoke and mirrors. I went and checked some places I know and its still there, strait from the real, widescreen version. They may catch the petty bootleggers but to some this is serious buisness. Good luck catching the real problem. Its all propoganda. Its like RIAA shutting down a few college websites and calling it a great success when they only hit the tip of the iceburg.

Movies are the next big thing beyond mp3. With better formats like mpeg4 on the horizen and cable and asdl modems becoming common it is inevitable. For some with fast connections it is allready common place. I can assure you they didn't hurt anyone with this media campaign. Do they really think they can stop this? ha.

Hypocritical Lucas (3)

Drath (50447) | more than 15 years ago | (#1778950)

Once again it all comes down to the money, I heard Lucas in a previous interview say "If I could do it for free I would, but the other people want their money". How noble. If Lucas really cared more about the art and less about the money he would want the movie to spread so more people could see it.

Re:Why bother? (3)

jandrese (485) | more than 15 years ago | (#1778952)

You mean emotions like disgust at having paid $6 to see the movie? :)

I do agree with you though, the people who are willing to find and download the entire movie are probably the ones who saw it on day 1.

I don't agree that everone who downloaded it was disappointed with the poor quality/emotional feel of the video and then went to see it on the big screen. It seems more likely to me that they were disappointed in the movie itself and didn't go to see it on the big screen.

Come on, they wouldn't lose any revenue (1)

Shadarr (11622) | more than 15 years ago | (#1778957)

Seriously now, do you really think anyone who's fanatic enough to download a camcorder version over a modem is then going to not see the film in the theater? They probably all saw it twice.

It has nothing to do with money, it has to do with Lucas and his hype machine (the best there is) making sure he is in complete control of everything you see and hear. The financial hit doesn't come from the people who actually watch the bootleg, it comes from the people who then find out the movie sucks and were previously undecided.


Using Microsoft software is like having unprotect sex.

I Hate Lucas (1)

PalmFrEq (54485) | more than 15 years ago | (#1778958)

Yes, ripping movies and distributing them on the Internet is wrong. But personally, I have very little sympathy for Lucas or his cause. He deserves this and a whole lot more. Why? Because, contrary to popular belief he, not Jar Jar ruined Star Wars. With his 'digital movie' bullshit, he asked a very talented group of actors to divert their effort from creating dynamic characters toward just trying to act on in an environment that isn't really there. Lucas wanted them to act in front of a blue screen, and what he got was them acting LIKE they were in front of a blue screen. Asshole.

Chinatown (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 15 years ago | (#1778959)

I realize this might violate some nerd ethic by recommending you leave the digital world for a moment, but if you really want a pirate copy of any movie, head down to chinatown. It doesn't matter WHICH chinatown, or which movie--they _all_ have them all, in stock, cheap.

What a load. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 15 years ago | (#1778960)

I can't believe they let people like this Moira Gunn write articles. I had a good laugh reading it, I'm amazed at the level of stupidity.

If some people think it's bad now, just wait until the real deal comes out, none of this cam crap. Then there will be some serious 'bootlegging'.

Spread butter on the table and dance!

Re:The article was a bit unrealistically placating (1)

tweek (18111) | more than 15 years ago | (#1778961)

Actually from what I've seen on IRc lately, the bots are offering alot of screeners in Active show Format. Of course it requires windows media player but you get a new flick in 2 seperate 200 meg portions. just small enough to burn on a cd with room to spare. Not that I've done this of course. The biggest thing is that with the highspeed accesses available now, 400 megs is nothing and there are plenty of underground irc networks that cater to the cable/adsl crowd.

Lucas vs the Net (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 15 years ago | (#1778962)

Aren't I taking more money away from movie producers if I pay to see one movie in a googleplex theatre and then spend the rest of the day going from cinema to cinema and see all the movies they have during the course of a day?
Maybe he should put THX-1138 style cops outside the doors checking tickets.

Blah (1)

NodeZero (49835) | more than 15 years ago | (#1778963)

I went and paid my $6.50 3 times. I also have a copy of it that a friend burnt to 2 cd's for me. I still supported the film by going 3 times.

Besides, A pirated copy is nothing the the experience of a HUGE digital theater, the only people who are getting jipped here are the one's who didnt see it in the theater.

Just my $00.02

Fairness.... (1)

Airneil (43790) | more than 15 years ago | (#1778966)

Au contrare,

It does work. It's just not fair in your estimation.

When you have people involved, there is no such thing as a totally fair system. Someone will always be in charge, count the vote, make the rule, etc. Even if someone decided to have anarchy as the only form of society, that person had to make that decision. It's not fair to the rest of us that WANT MORE RULES to tell us we can't have them.

Two quotes:

"When you choose not too decide, you still have made a choice."

"Those who know what's best for us must rise and save us from ourselves."

Airneil

Re:Realistically (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 15 years ago | (#1778968)

If you want a copy of TPM you will be able to find it on the net or on irc and there ain't a damn thing that Lucas can do about it.

Or if you live in New York, just go into the city and buy a VHS boot for five bucks. I went into the city to see the film on May 19th and the bootleg videos were already being sold on every street corner near Penn Station!

Re:Lucas... (1)

wiggles (30088) | more than 15 years ago | (#1778970)

I completely agree with you. The more I see, hear, and read, the more I feel that George Lucas is a complete asshole. I've loved SW dearly since birth, but c'mon. Jar-Jar? Lucas blaming the fans on the net (read: US) for the silicon spawned monstrosity sucking so badly? [bbc.co.uk] George being totally controlling over this? No SW on DVD [dvdresource.com] until 2006???? No Indiana Jones on DVD? Lucas, the more you tighten your grip, the more fans will slip through your fingers....

Re:Why bother? (1)

pspeed (12169) | more than 15 years ago | (#1778977)

Because if you don't bother then it weakens your ownership rights. If he doesn't fight for ownership now then it would be harder to fight for it later. Law sucks, but that's the way it is.

Stop the information?!?? (1)

JAZ (13084) | more than 15 years ago | (#1778978)

The author of this article suggests that Lucas was somehow successful in stemming the flow of the bootleg TPM. The only movie easier to get than TPM is The Matrix. This article is just spreading censorship propaganda, saying specifically that public information should be controlled in the name of privacy.

While I'm all for privacy, public information should be readily available and the Internet is the perfect medium. Phone numbers, addresses, criminal records, and anything else that is considered a matter of public record should not be censored.

Texas has an excellent website at www.publicdata.com [publicdata.com] that contains all sorts of useful stuff - all public record.

Re:Here's the real problem (1)

bliss (21836) | more than 15 years ago | (#1778979)

How much would it cost for example for me (if I did all the installation myself) would it be to get something like a T-1/T-3. It seems that such high bandwidth is prohibitively expensive since most of the Home--->Telco cabling is all analog stuff.

Um, no.. (5)

drwiii (434) | more than 15 years ago | (#1778980)

The lawyers actually got organized back in April. They started out by warning some 700 Internet Service Providers they would be held responsible for anyone offering bootleg copies on their services.

And the ISP community at large laughed them back into the shadows. Some even sent back forms to the lawyers describing their hourly consulting rates for finding and deleting said content, and included an application to start consulting service.

Why not have a `Cyber Patrol` which is constantly vigilant, watching the World Wide Web?

Because you're on crack? A good portion of trading happens independent of the public, and independent of the World Wide Web. Policing those means would be a breach of privacy for the traders, and therefore would be unacceptable.

Does the world really have a right to our home address and telephone number?

Of course they do.

So, the next time someone tells you -- `You just can't stop information from being passed around the Internet!` -- think twice. We can stop most of it with a little determination.

No you can't. 99.99995% of the time, it'll be mirrored somewhere. That's the good thing about digital media. Providing you have the space to store it, there's really no cost for materials to reproduce it, aside from possible bandwidth costs.

And you can't track it. Most of the best stuff is being traded on the inside, you are only privy to the stuff that bubbles to the surface.

Truthfully, most of the crap that comes out of the big studios isn't even worth the disk space it occupies. Especially the Phantom Menace.

Re:Usenet (Off Tpic Reply) (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 15 years ago | (#1778981)

For the overburning issue, use a VCD creator, you're obviously trying to burn a MPEG file into a VCD and the only way to burn it is burn it in mode 2 (XA mode). I use Adeptic's VCD Creator which is quite easy to work with since it's wizard-driven.

Re:not too happy... (1)

bliss (21836) | more than 15 years ago | (#1778982)

The business mentality is directly against what technology is about in the first place. Basically you start to think of money making for the sake of making money and it becomes a vicious cycle. You never get to think of anything else. That's why "professional business" will be my last choice when I go to get a job.

But is this "News for Nerds"? (0)

Syslevel (69599) | more than 15 years ago | (#1778983)

I'm staring right now at a bitmap of the 'bruised lower lip' woman character from that movie "Star Wars, the fourth episode renumbered as episode one" and realizing they've made a ton of money from the movie already.

Granted they've invested considerable money into the form of Black Magick that we in this culture call 'advertising' and should be able to reap the benefits from the mindspace they now own in each of our heads.

So let them take down anybody who 'pirates' the copyrighted images. It's nothing new. I don't even feel it's Stuff that Matters. But I'm a real geek, not a wannabe.

Real geeks know, for example the relative merits of the different families of TTL (74, 74S, 74LS, 74ALS, 74C, 74HC, etc.) Ubergeeks even know why the 74S family is nearly obsolete (except where screaming speed is necessary, ie a few gates on video cards,) and which chips in the LS family their code is most likely still flowing through in the late 90's (i.e. the 74LS244 and 74LS373, though in a lot of cases it will be HC families instead).

Wannabies just get confused by all this.

Re:Get in the game, people... (1)

pspeed (12169) | more than 15 years ago | (#1778984)

Heh, given the choice I think I'd rather walk into a dark alley full of thieves than a dark alley full of lawyers. At least the thieves will only steal what I have on me...

Lucas shouldn't care (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 15 years ago | (#1778985)


It will not impact the bottom line of video rentals or threaters one bit.

Fact is, very few people can download an almost
1 gigabyte MPEG. I have a T1 myself and it would be painful, to say nothing of the HD space on my poor 18gb HD.

On top of that, the quality *sucks* compared to even VHS, and it has shitty sound. Even VHS
bootlegs suck.

Nothing compares to the real experience of seeing a movie on a HUGE screen like the Uptown in DC, with a kickass sound system. If you sit at home watching bootlegs on your monitor, you are a penny pinching loser.

People have been bootlegging forever. They are a nuisance, but they don't impact the general viewing audience (except in Hong Kong where VCD's are killing the movie industry). They may impact VHS sales, but probably not.

Even MP3 pirating isn't affecting music sales. The fact is, the vast majority of people still pay for stuff, and they won't spend all their time hanging out in EFNet #warez/#mp3 (assuming they even know what IRC is)

Re:RIGHT On! (1)

dangermouse (2242) | more than 15 years ago | (#1779006)

so, tell me again what the hell your bitching about magic, science fiction, etc. has to do with movie bootlegging?

What does Lucas have to lose here? (1)

The Silicon Sorceror (40289) | more than 15 years ago | (#1779007)

Do they really think that even the lamest of the "31337" are going to waste their time downloading over a gigabyte of movie where "use the force" sounds like "OORGH A WORTTSHK!" and you can't see half the screen when they can go into a theater, plunk down a few bucks and watch it with surround sound? Even if they have to wait a week or two? And if you have a bad connection, the movie will be *released* before you have time to download the whole thing! Assuming a few jerks with no life actually download it, they're going to go see it in theaters anyway because it sucked so bad on the little screen. Oh, no! Lucas is going to lose a couple thousand bucks on this, at least!

Downloading... (1)

Rabbins (70965) | more than 15 years ago | (#1779008)

I downloaded a pirate version of the originol teasers for the movie, but I do not know anyone who actually downloaded the entire movie. I wanted to know as little as possible about the movie, so that when I did see it in a theatre, I would have a better experience (Whether my experience was that much better is open to debate). Were there that many people so desperate to watch a crappy version of the film just to say they "had seen it first".
pretty lame.

Re:WHO CARES??? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 15 years ago | (#1779009)

true true


Re:The article was a bit unrealistically placating (1)

bliss (21836) | more than 15 years ago | (#1779010)

What if I live in Cuba or Iraq and have a web page with the movie? Would it be possible for someone to prevent that from being released? How big is this thing anyway? And where could it be retrieved from? I can't think of many ISP's or anyone who just has an extra 25Gb to spare for just one file.

Lucas Arts and Everyone else, good luck. (1)

joecamel^ (73057) | more than 15 years ago | (#1779011)

I think that any company wanting to stop their product from being pirated, whether it be Software, Video, or even Playstations and N64 Games is crazy to think that we are not on track if not one step ahead of them. They aren't in the underground (at least to our knowledge), they don't see whats ACTUALLY going on, all they know is that a couple of script kiddies put it on their web page for people to download of their hacked shell accounts. In reality, its the fast FTP sites that are moving the stuff, with the introduction of FXP (proxy) to the masses, it has made a whole lot of difference in the way people pirate things. These FTP site have username/pw/ip/ident checking to make sure you or I cannot give our password out to a friend, port scanners dont work on the ports because the ip checking is done by the TCP_Wrappers and the ftp daemon before it even prompts you. With the use of port sentry most likely the firewall will ban you subnet before you even get to the port range you're looking for. So by shutting down 300-400 web pages, it may look good in their eyes, but thats about it. There is still millions more downloading it from private ftp sites that will never be stopped, IMHO.

They must not have seen the screener then... (1)

Wakko Warner (324) | more than 15 years ago | (#1779012)

"It turns out that two of the high-jacked Internet offerings were recorded with hand-held digital video cameras carried into early screenings of the film. Can you imagine it? `Excuse me! Coming through with popcorn!`"

Those versions (especially the early vcdeu one) were indeed terrible. The Malay screener rip made up for it though. Exceptional video, exceptional audio - the only minor annoyance is the Malaysian subtitles, which are easy to ignore. I guess they didn't want the readers to know that their carefully-controlled, well-oiled machine didn't work as well as one would like to think (otherwise, how would someone have gotten their hands on a screener in the first place?)

"So, the next time someone tells you -- `You just can't stop information from being passed around the Internet!` -- think twice. We can stop most of it with a little determination."

Uh huh. I'll go back to downloading MP3s now. Not that I do that or anything.

- A.P.
--


"One World, One Web, One Program" - Microsoft Promotional Ad

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?