AfterDawn: Tech news

More MPAA lawsuits filed

Written by James Delahunty (Google+) @ 03 Aug 2005 10:47 User comments (12)

More MPAA lawsuits filed Following the example of the recording industry, the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) has filed more lawsuits against file sharers it alleges to have distributed copyrighted movies illegally over P2P networks. The cases could result in fines of up to $150,000 or prison terms. A warning also went out from the MPAA which said there would be no let up in the fight against piracy.
"People needed to learn that piracy was harmful to the people who use their talents to create movies", said MPAA director for worldwide anti-piracy, John Malcolm. Not only can users of P2P services be sued for uploading and downloading copyrighted material, now in some cases, filesharing companies could be held liable for infringement by their users also due to the Supreme Court decision back in June.

John Malcolm said that the MPAA doesn't like suing people or paying for lawyers but that it would have to continue its fight against online distribution of stolen movies. In 2004, it is estimated that the movie industry lost $3.5bn (1.9bn) to piracy, but that figure doesn't include online file sharing. A lot of P2P users who share and download movies condemn the lawsuits saying that the movie industry doesn't offer "proper" legal alternatives for movie downloading.

Source:
BBC News

Previous Next  

12 user comments

13.8.2005 12:11

Quote:
People needed to learn that piracy was harmful to the people who use their talents to create movies"
Quote:
users of P2P services be sued
yeh weve also heard the
Quote:
you can click but u cant hide
from the RIAA. yer. we are scared. im fed up of ther fucI<in bullshyt excuses for the failure in sales etc. filesharing. big old bad old filesharing criminals........ yawn yawn, we've heard the lines. but, ironically we've never seen the figures. im not talkin about the "it is estimated that the movie industry lost $3.5bn (1.9bn) to piracy" figures....were is the proof that it is all down to filesharers and pirates. in this year, name me ten excellent quality albums and films.......exactly. this is why people arent buying them. oh and dont forget the prices. i dno about u guys on the $$'s but here in britain a new release dvd can be up to 18 bout $33. i mean wtf? peeps can dload a AVI DivX XviD which are near dvd quality films for free. not only that. if u have a decent connection it will take u only 1-2 hours to do so. so there little theory is craaap. thats my lil bit lol peace out

23.8.2005 12:21

Yes, yes, we've all seen the enormous effect the RIAA has had with their lawsuits! Why, the P2P networks are all completely empty now that they've started fighting file sharing! This sure is a smart move for the MPAA!

33.8.2005 16:17

Just wondering why anyone would wait for a downloaded movie at all, especially with the risk of getting sued for every dollar/pound/etc./whatever you are worth. In the US, anyway, Netflix is only $17/month and is by far the way to go!! (As DVDShrink runs in the background for the 4th time this week...)

43.8.2005 18:18

they should have used limewire.

53.8.2005 20:48
RussReef
Inactive

No, No... IRC, and then you'll have no worries since you're not the one doing the sharing (just the leeching)... Or pursue 100% legal means like allofmp3.com. Just my $.02, FWIW.

63.8.2005 20:50
RussReef
Inactive

Opps... this was regarding movies (not music)... My bad. [Hey, there's no edit button here. Nothing I can do about it now.] Still, even for movies, IRC all the way! :-)

74.8.2005 3:41

To Lethal B The money they reckon they have lost is simply the number of downloads they have estimated mutiplied by the price of a DVD. Now this is a huge assumption by the MPAA that everyone who would download would go and buy the dvd if they couldn't fileshare. By using that theory. All car thieves would buy new cars if they couldn't steal anymore. Its just plain wrong. It is all about price and quality as you rightly say.

84.8.2005 8:44

Some filesharers actually buy the content they download if they are happy with it

95.8.2005 12:07

I hear all this crap about how studios have predicted losses. Well I admit that I am a filesharing fanatic, but I don't consider myself a culprit in these predicted losses. One of the reasons I am addicted to filesharing is that I'm cheap as hell. I buy all my clothes in clearance sections and when it comes to hardware the first place I go is pricewatch. When it comes to music and movies, I wouldn't buy them unless I really wanted them. I have a collection of about 15 DVDs, and only a few CDs I bought in the last year. If filesharing were to disappear I still would have about 15 DVDs and maybe just 3 or 4 more CDs. Also, I only see movies I really want to. Last Spring I got one of those "letters from your ISP" for donwloading Hotel Rwanda. I saw that movie in the theatre. I also downloaded SW:ROTS and I saw that twice in the theater. Some movies I download because I'm remotely interested in them, but if filesharing were to disappear I wouldn't go to the movies to see them or buy their DVD. Hence, I'm more or less not the problem. the thing with filesharing is that if were not to exist I wouldn't buy anything. I'm that cheap. I have a collection of about 12 DVDs and only a few CDs that I bought in the last year. So if I'm remotely interested in something I'll DL it and then delete it if it's crap. If it's a good movie I'll go see it in the theatre. For instance I downloaded the SWrots movie, but I also saw it twice in the theatre. I don't see how I'm making studios lose money. I don't see bad movies anyway

105.8.2005 12:09

(whoops scratch that last paragrpah. I was supposed to delete those lines)

115.8.2005 20:22

I was talking to a guy the other day who spent 6 weeks in Hollywood trying to get a movie deal finalized. The script was good, the plot brilliant but the bean counters who now run the studios wanted "big" name actors which would push the cost over the top. Yea like all those recent "Big" name successes. The recent crashes of so called blockbusters that are full of special effects with hardly a story line. The downturn of video sales and movie attendences are soley on the backs of the Hollywood moguls and like their music counterparts they have lost sight of what people really want. Same old actors, same old storyline, same old effects, same old rubbish.

125.8.2005 22:35

I have to agree with connolly and necronite. In the 80 ies I worked as a Commodore Computer rep for the Army PX in Korea. It was my experience that game makers lost almost no money to people who copied software because the people who copied would not buy the software if they had to. In the case of Star Wars 3 I tool the advice Lucas put out about the movie being to intense for younger children. I borrowed the infamous pirated copy and watched it. Lucas was right. I left my grandson home and went by myself because after seeing the movie on TV I wanted to see it on the big screen. If it had not been for the pirated copy I probably would not have spent my money on a theater ticket because I would have assumed that 3 sucked as bad as 1 & 2. That aside Hollywood has created its own problem, they have priced themselves out of the movie seat market. I took my grandson to see the Fantastic 4. I walked in with a $20 bill and came out with 25 cents. That really makes no since because in a month or two I will be able to but the DVD for $14.95 and watch it as many times as I want. If I am even cheaper I can wait for it to show up in the $5 hopper at Wal-Mart in maybe a year or so. There will always be thieves in the world just like their will always be rip-off-artists. If the thieves stop stealing the Hollywood rip-off-artists wont have a scapegoat anymore. All we have to do then is just stay home and when the studio executives can no longer send their bimbos and silicon princess to Rodeo Drive to buy $1,500 mini skirts they will get the message.

Comments have been disabled for this article.

News archive