It’s getting harder and harder to be surprised about the MPAA’s silly tactics. So, surprise! The MPAA has successfully shut down an Ohio town’s municipal Wi-Fi network because one person was caught illegally downloading a movie. You know, peers and seeders and all that.

The Wi-Fi network was set up around the Coshocton County Courthouse located in central-ish Ohio. The network has been up and running for about five yeas now, and serves up to 100 people on a busy day. (Not that I have any idea of what would cause such a commotion in the town!)

The town’s commissioner said: “It’s unfortunate that one person ruins it for those who use the service legitimately.” Yes, and when some maniac stabs another person we confiscate everyone’s kitchen knives. Or when a drunk driver kills an innocent motorist the government comes around and takes away everyone’s car.

Collective punishment, anyone?

The MPAA’s nonsense really isn’t going to be challenged until our elected officials have an understanding of basic technology, which I don’t think will happen any time soon.

You probably already hate, for whatever reason, the MPAA (and its music industry cousin, the RIAA), but here’s another reason to do so. The group is asking, for like the zillionth time, for the FCC to approve something called selectable output control. In essence, this allows a video signal to be sent to your TV from, say, a video on-demand service, that prevents the use of certain, non-approved audio/video outputs. In other words, if you want to watch Terrible Movie 2: Yes, It Has Contrived To Be Worse Than The First on Comcast On-Demand, you won’t be able to record it using an old TiVo that connects via component cables.

You see, the MPAA is scared to death that you’ll buy the On-Demand version of said woeful movie, then won’t buy the Blu-ray when it comes out. It’s also afraid that you’ll take your DVR recording, and start bootlegging it at your local bowling alley. (Because people have that kind of time!) If you don’t keep buying the same movie over and over again (at the theaters, on On-Demand, on Blu-ray, along with a HBO or Showtime subscription), it’ll be Hell on Earth. And to be fair to the MPAA… actually, I can’t. The MPAA could disappear and I wouldn’t mind one bit.

One group, Public Knowledge, produced a video last year that, while slightly overboard on the Internet humor, gets the message across:

Of course, the MPAA will call the video nonsense, and insist that it’s merely trying to help the elderly or those without a babysitter watch the latest Hollywood blockbusters more easily. Sorry, I don’t believe you.

Then again, I’m sure the MPAA could give a Flying F what I, or any of you, think.

(That’s a 50 DKP minus for the rubbish picture here, I know. I couldn’t think of a clever way to illustrate Internet angst against the MPAA.)

You wouldn’t want to be isoHunt founder Gary Fung these days. (Note: That’s the best story about BitTorrent I’ve read in some time. Take a few minutes to read all of it.) He’s currently facing an MPAA lawsuit that could well result in fines in the millions of dollars. (TorrentSpy was ordered to cough up $100 million last year.) And even if Mr. Fung doesn’t have that kind of money, and he doesn’t, the MPAA is prepared to pursue any judgement “for the rest of his life.” The MPAA sounds like it means business.

So here’s what’s going on. The MPAA, on a high after being award $100 million in a lawsuit against TorrentSpy, is going after isoHunt, one of the biggest torrent sites out there. The site, which is for-profit, is run by Mr. Fung and a small staff. It makes money with advertisements, not by “selling” movies or whatever. But try telling that to the MPAA, which is prepared, apparently, to follow Mr. Fung to the ends of the Earth to get its pound of flesh.

Stephen Fabrizio is an MPAA lawyer, and a former RIAA lawyer. (Need a job? Go to law school and get hitched with the RIAA/MPAA; they’re always hiring, it seems.) He says:

The isoHunt site was founded and exists almost exclusively to profit from copyright infringement. Statistical studies we did—which are likely as accurate as those that anyone has done—show that over 95% [of torrents], or almost everything, and several percent we couldn’t identify, are infringing. This site exists for one purpose: to allow people to steal. That is why he started the website, that’s why he operates it and that’s what he profits from.

Is it theft, or is it copyright infringement? They’re two different things.

But the worst is this. What happens if Mr. Fung doesn’t have millions of dollars to pay. Says the MPAA lawyer:

But the judgment doesn’t go away. If Gary Fung creates a legitimate website, we’ll be there. If he sells that company for $100 million, we’ll be there. For the rest of his life we’ll be able to pursue that judgment.

In other words, unless Mr. Fung is prepared to pull a Brooks, from The Shawshank Redemption, the MPAA will make Mr. Fung’s life a living Hell.

Mr. Fung is trying to pull the ol’ “but isoHunt is just a search engine” defense, but considering the technological knowledge of the political élite, I’m not too sure it will work.

via TorrentFreak

What’s another phrase for, “meh, who cares?” That’s what I’m thinking when I read that the MPAA tried to argue in court that making a personal copy of a DVD is illegal under the DMCA. Is it shocking to people that the MPAA would argue in favor of its own interests, possibly at the expense of the your ability to make rip a DVD? No. No it’s not.

This all “went down” at the Real DVD court hearing. Remember Real DVD? It is (was?) a piece of software that made copies of DVDs that would then only play within Real’s software; you couldn’t, say, burn a disc then play it on your stand-alone Sony or Samsung (or whatever) DVD or Blu-ray player. That wasn’t good enough for the MPAA, you’ll recall.

But back to the issue at hand—the MPAA hates each and every one of you.

Isn’t it strange that Real, a company so teased and mocked by the Internet community for years now (see: buffering jokes, etc.), is now in a position to argue for our rights as consumers to copy our legally purchased DVDs.

Photo: Flickr

Remember RealDVD, Real Networks’ attempt to legitimize DVD copying, only the movie studios freaked out because they didn’t understand what the software was all about? Well, Real still thinks it has a good chance of winning the lawsuit it faces. Lawsuit out of the way, it’ll go on selling RealDVD like nothing ever happened.

Should Real win the lawsuit—it’s prepared to alter the software in order to placate the judge and/or MPAA—it will resume sales, which have been frozen since October.

You will recall that Real thinks it should be allowed to sell RealDVD because it doesn’t destroy a DVD’s CSS encryption. The studios don’t give a hoot; all they see is, “Oh man, J6P will be able to copy DVDs now.” Hence lawsuit, freaking, etc. It’s very tiring, really.

No, this story has nothing to do with Homer; it just makes me laugh.

How much does it cost to monitor college students’ anti-American P2P activities? A whole lot, and that’s money colleges could be spending on, I don’t know, education.

This chart breaks down the cost of complying with, specifically, the new provisions of the Higher Education Act of 2008. That law, which the RIAA and MPAA were able to lobby their way into, requires colleges try to stem the spread of illegal P2P downloads on campus. The tools to police what students are up to exist—ipaudit is one that comes to mind—but is it really the business of colleges, realm of higher learning, to snoop on what their students are up to? Why not live and let live, punishing violations as they occur rather than spending all day playing cyber nanny?

One comment at Inside Higher Ed goes into the issue of government-sponsored censorship and prior restraint (in a sense), since the law applies to state schools as while as private schools. That’s an issue for another day, I think.

Like Achilles, it looks like RealDVD has lived a short but glorious life. Its name will echo for eternity. And so on, and so forth.

Right, so that judge that RealNetworks was so confident would rule in its favor did the exact opposite, ruling in favor of the movie studios. The temporary injunction on the sales of RealDVD will go on indefinitely; the odds of RealDVD coming back, especially before Christmastime, now look pretty gosh darn slim.

With this sentence, the judge seems to have sealed RealDVD’s fate:

I’m not satisfied that in fact this technology is not in violation of the DMCA.

That’s quite the innovative statement coming from the judge. Now all we have to do is wait for the record labels to work this line of thinking to their favor. You know, “If the judge says you can’t copy a video discs, why should you be able to copy an audio disc?”

Hooray for America.

The RealDVD saga continues, quickly becoming one of the more interesting tech stories of the past few months.

As we already know, both RealNetworks and the MPAA have been suing each other left, right and center over the past two weeks. Well now Real has issued an official statement, one sure to send shivers up the spines of the MPAA’s lawyers.

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

From this, it does look like RealNetworks is prepared to fight this out, at least initially. Should the judge rule in the studios’ favor, who knows if RealNetworks will deem it worth all the time, money and energy to fight.

I dare ask: maybe RealNetworks created RealDVD with the knowledge that the MPAA would sue, giving it the chance to play damsel in distress. Then, we’d all feel sorry for the company, yada yada yada.

You just knew this was going to happen. Sales of RealNetworks’ RealDVD have been suspended while Real fights Hollywood in court, forever.

You already know what Hollywood’s beef is, that RealDVD allows people to illegally copy DVDs blah bah who cares. Rent, rip and retun all you want, I say.

Take this line from the MPAA’s lawsuit:

Motion pictures and television programs require substantial investments
of money, time, effort and creativity by hundreds or often thousands of
people…

Oh, please. It’s a bunch of overpaid people pretending to be other people in front of a camera, acting. No lives are saved and America’s position in the world is not enhanced. Boo hoo, Hollywood.

What are they going to accomplish here? They’re telling consumers that they can’t back up their own DVDs — because that’s all RealDVD can do. It’s designed to respect DRM and restrict the DVDs’ usage, and whatever your position is on that, there can be no question that the MPAA’s position should have at the very least been one of grudging acquiescence. But these dinosaurs seem hell-bent on dragging the world kicking and screaming into the last century. If it’s any consolation, in a few years they’ll be fossils.

The full press release:

Motion Picture Studios File Lawsuit Against Realnetworks

LOS ANGELES, Sept. 30 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ — The nation’s top movie
companies filed a lawsuit today asking a federal court to stop RealNetworks
Inc. from distributing the company’s RealDVD software which allows movies
to be copied illegally. In their complaint and motion for a temporary
restraining order, the studios said that RealNetworks’ RealDVD violates the
Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) because its software illegally
bypasses the copyright protection built into DVDs that protect movies
against theft.

“RealNetworks’ RealDVD should be called StealDVD,” explained Greg
Goeckner, Executive Vice President and General Counsel for the Motion
Picture Association of America (MPAA). “RealNetworks knows its product
violates the law and undermines the hard-won trust that has been growing
between America’s movie makers and the technology community. The major
motion picture studios have been making major investments in technologies
that allow people to access entertainment in a variety of new and legal
ways. This includes online video-on-demand, download-to-own, as well as
legitimate digital copies for storage and use on computers and portable
devices that are increasingly being made available on or with DVDs. Our
industry will continue on this path because it gives consumers greater
choices than ever. However, we will vigorously defend our right to stop
companies from bringing products to market that mislead consumers and
clearly violate the law.”

The Content Scramble System (CSS) built into DVDs prevents the
unauthorized reproduction and distribution of copyrighted material released
in DVD format. The RealDVD software illegally circumvents this copyright
protection system. Among other things, the RealDVD software enables users
to engage in an illegal practice known as “rent, rip and return,” whereby a
person rents a DVD from a legitimate business like Blockbuster or Netflix,
uses the RealDVD software to make multiple permanent illegal copies of the
movie, and returns the DVD, only to rent another popular title and make
permanent copies of it, repeating the cycle of theft over and over again
without ever making a purchase. On its own Web site, RealNetworks
acknowledges that this behavior is illegal and that its software could be
used in that manner.

Motion pictures and television programs require substantial investments
of money, time, effort and creativity by hundreds or often thousands of
people, which must be recouped through many individual exhibitions, sales
and broadcasts of the works. DVD sales are a major source of revenues that
enable the studios to invest in and develop the wide range of entertainment
options available to consumers. The RealDVD software would enable massive
theft of creative content that would have a direct, negative impact on the
delivery of movies, television shows and other entertainment to consumers
through the home entertainment and digital distribution markets.

The lawsuit, filed today in U.S. District Court in Los Angeles asks for
damages and injunctive relief against RealNetworks Inc. for violations of
the Digital Millennium Copyright Act’s (DMCA) circumvention provisions. The
DMCA prohibits the manufacturing or trafficking of any technology or
product, service or device that is designed for the purpose of
circumventing measures that effectively protect copyrighted titles. In
manufacturing and selling RealDVD, RealNetworks Inc., a CSS licensee, has
attempted to leverage its license improperly by making a product that
permits users to circumvent the protections of CSS. Such a product was
never intended to be authorized by the CSS license.

The worldwide motion picture industry, including foreign and domestic
producers, distributors, theaters, video stores and pay-per-view operators
lose more than $18 billion annually as a result of movie theft. More than
$7 billion in losses are attributed to illegal Internet distributions,
while $11 billion is the result of illegal copying and bootlegging.

Joe Biden, Barack Obama’s running mate, is not your friend when it comes to technology. Well, he could well be your friend, if you’re the RIAA or MPAA.

The vice presidential nominee has sponsored bills over the year that were championed by both the music and movie industry. He was one of the main forces behind the Perform Act, which is what the RIAA used to sue XM Satellite Radio for giving its customers the ability to record songs over-the-air.

One of Biden’s bills that would have made encrypting your data much more difficult, which encouraged Phil Zimmermann to create PGP.

If this type of thing revs your engine, be sure to read CNET’s full breakdown. I know many of you couldn’t give a damn who’s president, much less vice president, (good on you, by the way), but I know that TechCrunch endorsed Obama for his views on technology, so maybe a handful of you care. If not, carry on.

If the MPAA had its way, your DVR would be nothing more than a hunk of useless metal and plastic, unable to record and pause live television. Steps are being taken to ensure that it gets its way.

The fun-loving association is pushing hard for a technology called selectable output control, or SOC, which allows content providers—movie studios and the like—to prevent material from being recorded. It does this by blocking the so-called analog hole, making it impossible for you to, say, plug in standard 3.5mm audio jack and record sound to your computer.

I know that sounds evil and all that, but the idea behind this isn’t exactly unreasonable. Movie studios want to be able to let cable companies get an earlier crack at showing movies on-demand (for example), but are worried that folks will simply exploit the analog hole and record the movie long before the studio ever releases the DVD or Blu-ray version. If consumers could copy and record movies long before their DVD date, why should the movie studios even bother to produce a DVD?

Now, that’s completely not my problem, how the movie studios make money, but at least there’s a proper reason for their policy this time around.

Note that the FCC has so far said no to SOC, so there’s still some legs in this story.

More often than not, it’s the simple explanation that makes the most sense. Commenting on a recent LA Times woe-for-the-movie-industry piece, Techdirt arrives at the stunning conclusion that people will pay to go see a good movie.

The LA Times article describes in detail the efforts that the industry took to delay The Dark Knight including shipping the movie reels in separate shipments to discourage a complete copy being lost or stolen. From production to post on through movie theater delivery, the movie was under tight security.

All of this sounded a little over-vigilant to Mike Masnick who simplifies the equation down to the bare facts. Make a good movie and people will pay for the experience. The Dark Knight, most say, is a good movie. That is where the success came from, not by the cloak and dagger routine staged by the MPAA.

This may come as a bit of a shock to y’all, but the MPAA actually has a idea to “save” the movie industry that doesn’t involve sending out John Doe letters to dumb teens. The association is launching a Web site (no release date yet, ‘fraid) that will help folks find legitimate sources of movies. You know, iTunes, Xbox Marketplace, Netflix, etc.

It’s 2008. Good to see the MPAA get with the program.

That the MPAA assumes that folks don’t know the difference between going to the Pirate Bay and going to iTunes should just be ignored.

Good luck to the MPAA and its newfangled “Web site.” About time these guys get their act together.

via Ars Technica

The MPAA may have some explaining to do following remarks of one of its lawyers in the Jammie Thomas trial. The remark in question, as written by Marie. L. van Uitert:

It is often very difficult, and in some cases, impossible, to provide such direct proof when confronting modern forms of copyright infringement, whether over P2P networks or otherwise; understandably, copyright infringers typically do not keep records of infringement

In other words, the MPAA shouldn’t have to provide “direct proof”—it’s pesky!—when suing old ladies, dopey college kids and John and Jane Does for as much as $150,000 per copyright violation.

How does that make sense, in human terms? Never mind the $150,000 per copyright violation—movie tickets are, what, $10 these days?—but the MPAA believes it should be able to extract such funds merely because, you know, it’s “difficult” to prove any wrongdoing? Stunning.

How old and unreasonably rigid is our legal system that this type of thing can be taken seriously?

Oh now I’m all worked up again.

via TorrentFreak

Sad news, folks. Manny, a dog trained to sniff out pirated DVDs, has died in Malaysia. The AP is reporting that the dog “died of an unknown cause” and that Malaysian authorities don’t suspect foul play, but then added that two other dogs that helped uncover 1.6 million pirated DVDs last year “reportedly caused movie pirates to place a bounty on their heads.” I’m no cop but there’s your suspicion of foul play, officers.

Apparently the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) owns a few of these dogs and lends them out to various governments to help crack down on piracy. Although the dogs “cannot distinguish between real and pirated DVDs,” they’re able to help officers find counterfeit discs hidden in areas suspected to contain such items. 

The Motion Picture Association of America wants to release movies to TV, pay-per-view, on-demand, and premium movie channels before releasing them for sale on DVD. Sounds good, no? There’s a little catch, though. The MPAA wants to block these early releases from being recorded on your DVR.

Traditionally, new movies get released into theaters, then get shown on airplanes and in hotels, then are made available on DVD and over the Internet, then on-demand/pay per view, then premium movie channels like HBO, and finally to regular broadcast TV. The whole cycle typically takes about three years. Well, the industry now wants to get its movies onto people’s televisions a whole lot sooner, before the movies are released on DVD, even.

The problem, however, is that the MPAA is asking that the FCC allow it to selectively block high-definition movies from being recorded on our DVR systems. This process is called Selectable Output Control, and is currently restricted by the FCC, and, according to Ars Technica, “The Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) wants a waiver on that restriction in the case of high-definition movies broadcast prior to their release as DVDs.”

MPAA argues that, in addition to getting first-run movies to the public sooner, giving movie studios a break on this issue could also aid the DTV transition. The enhanced service "will encourage the purchase of HDTV sets by consumers, and thereby ensure that a greater number of citizens have the necessary equipment to receive broadcast digital programming by February 17, 2009."

The FCC warns that consumers expect their high definition digital televisions to work correctly and that Selectable Output Control flies in the face of that expectation.

I’m all for being able to watch movies on TV before they’re released on DVD, but the idea of not being able to record them or skip past commercials leaves a bad taste in my mouth. This just seems like a plan by the movie industry to get us to pay twice for the same movie, either by renting it on-demand or sitting through commercials first, and then buying it again on DVD because we couldn’t record it before.

I knew that printers could copy documents but can they really copy Iron Man? Researchers at the University of Washington were doing some tests to suss out BitTorrent traffic on their local network when they found a way to spoof traffic from certain IP addresses. After spoofing two printers on their network, the printers received DMCA notices from the MPAA for sharing files like Iron Man and the new Indy movie.

Their goal was to force the MPAA to open up their search systems to scrutiny, something they will never, ever do.

“Our study scientifically shows that flaws exists,” said Mr. Kohno, an assistant professor in the university’s Computer Science and Engineering department. “It’s impossible to prove that other flaws don’t exist, especially since current industry practices are so shrouded in mystery. Ultimately, we think that our results should provide a wake-up call for more openness on the parts of content enforcers.”

Go ahead and tell me that New York isn’t over. The city will be plastering subways with anti-piracy flyers throughout the summer, telling people, essentially, not to copy that floppy. Harried New Yorkers and in-the-way tourists will be treated to mock movie ratings, like the kind seen here. Instead of “R” and “PG” we’ll be seeing “RO” and “F” for “ripped off” and “f,” respectively.

Keep in mind that this is more about on-the-street piracy than cruising The Pirate Bay for DVD rips of Cloverfield, which, I must say, was probably the worst movie I’ve ever seen.

Meanwhile, the MPAA says nearly 23,000 people have lost their jobs because of piracy, which also caused a $903m loss last year. I… don’t believe that stat. That’s just me, though.

Usenet appears to be the MPAA’s next target. Not good.

The MPAA has told Newzbin, a popular Usenet indexing service and creator of the NZB file format, that it’s hosting copyright-infringing material, material that needs to be removed post-haste. Never mind that NZB files themselves aren’t copyright-infringing (though I doubt the courts would make that distinction), but such is the world we live in.

By the looks of it, Newzbin seems to be complying with the MPAA’s demands. It made a statement saying it doesn’t “condone” the posting of copyright-infringing material, and has hinted that it will remove such material and ban offending accounts.

A few months ago, the RIAA targeted a prominent Usenet provider, so going after enablers like Newzbin was the next logical step.

My advice? Leech off Usenet while you stile can.

via TorrentFreak