Mike LaVigne, IT director, said the number of people who access the Internet using the connection varies widely, from perhaps a dozen people a day to 100 during busy times such as First Fridays and the Coshocton Canal Festival.
It's used by Coshocton County Sheriff's deputies who can park in the 300 block and complete a traffic or incident report without leaving their vehicle. Out-of-town business people can park and use their laptops to make connections.

During festival times, vendors find it a convenience to check the status of credit cards being used to make purchases, LaVigne said.

Because it's a single address used by many people, it's difficult to tell who made the illegal download, although the county plans to investigate the matter.

Illegal movie download forces shutdown of free Wi-Fi [Coschton Tribune via BoingBoing] (Photo: ashestoages)

This capability is called selectable output control or SOC, and the FCC banned it back in 2003. SOC would allow "service operators, such as cable companies, to turn off analog outputs on consumer electronics devices, only allowing digital plugs" such as HDMI. The MPAA is arguing that if they could directly turn those plugs on and off, they could offer more goods to consumers and therefore make everyone happier.

But that's not what over a dozen public interest groups think, notes Home Media Magazine:

[Groups] including Public Knowledge, the Digital Freedom Campaign, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, the Consumer Federation of America and the Media Access Project, are fighting the MPAA over the request, saying it puts control of privately owned consumer electronics into the hands of the movie industry, hurts TiVo and Slingbox owners, and leaves out consumers who own TVs without digital connections.

"The MPAA has failed to provide a reason as to why the limited interests of its six member movie studios should be allowed to outweigh the interests of those consumers that will be forced to replace over 20 million television sets and countless other devices in order to view content that their current equipment is capable of displaying," the Nov. 4 letter from the interest groups reads. "Furthermore, granting the waiver effectively would allow MPAA member companies to control the types of connections and features offered to all U.S. consumers, forcing consumer electronics designers and manufacturers to agree to almost any consumer-unfriendly conditions just to display SOC content."

Here's a video from Public Knowledge that addresses SOC. (Hey Public Knowledge guys, record your audio in a room with less background noise!)

"MPAA, Consumer Groups Battle Over FCC Waiver" [Home Media Magazine]
"MPAA Wants to Control TVs in Your Home; Consumer Groups Fight Back" [The Wrap]
Public Knowledge page on SOC [Public Knowledge]

Phil writes:

For Xmas I ordered my wife the Judging Amy Complete DVD set from this place called dvdglobe.tv I thought it was odd that shipping was $25, but I figured it would at least be very fast and in time for Christmas. Nope, the reason the shipping was $25 was because it was shipping from China.

The DVDs arrived on Christmas Eve. The other day I saw her watching Judging Amy but it said "TNT" in the lower right hand corner. I asked her "why aren't you watching the DVDs I bought you?" "I am." Hmmm... so some shop in China recorded the show off of TV, ripped out the commercials, and did a low quality transfer to DVD. And I do mean low quality.

Phil says he contacted the company and they've promised him a full refund, but in the meantime he'd like to know who to report them to. Phil, a little part of us is dying inside for having to do this, but... you should contact the MPAA. Yes, that MPAA, the ridiculous one. It's their job to deal with stuff like this, so fill out their online "report piracy" form.

You can also help fellow consumers by reporting this company on ripoffreport.com, so that your story will show up on Google searches.

(Photo: bobbigmac)

This document is among other briefs submitted to a judge overseeing the Jammie Thomas trial, the only RIAA case ever to go to trial. Thomas was sued by the RIAA for $222,000 for "making available" 24 songs on the Kazaa network. At the time, Judge Davis instructed jurors that they only needed to find that Thomas had an open share folder and not that the songs were actually copied or transferred. However, the judge has since suggested that he made have made a mistake in giving this instruction and is deciding whether to order a mistrial.

The article says,

The deadline to submit briefs to the judge was Friday. Among the briefs, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, Public Knowledge, the United States Internet Industry Association and the Computer and Communications Industry Association all jointly filed a brief, saying the law did not allow damages for "attempted" copyright infringement.

"Given the serious consequences that flow from copyright’s strict liability regime, the court should resist plaintiffs imprecations to expand that regime absent an unequivocal expression of Congressional intent," the groups wrote, noting that the language in the Copyright Act demands actual distribution to the public of protected works.

It was a similar brief in tone to the one that a group of 10 intellectual property scholars lodged earlier in the week.

But the MPAA, long an ally to the RIAA, which has sued more than 20,000 individuals for file sharing of copyrighted music, told Judge Davis that peer-to-peer users automatically should be liable for infringement.

"The only purpose for placing copyrighted works in the shared folder is, of course, to 'share,' by making those works available to countless other P2P networks," the MPAA wrote.

It is absurd that lawyers, of all people, believe we should live in a society where clear and concrete proof needn't be necessary to establish one's guilt. Proving cases of copyright infringement is far from impossible. It is only a matter of spending the proper amount of time and money to do so.

MPAA Says No Proof Needed in P2P Copyright Infringement Lawsuits [Wired]
Capitol v. Thomas [Wiki]

The main problem with the system, researchers contend, is that enforcement agencies are only looking at IP addresses of those participating on peer-to-peer networks and don't focus on the actual files being transferred. The article says,

In two separate studies in August 2007 and May of this year, the researchers set out to examine who was participating in BitTorrent file-sharing networks and what they were sharing. The researchers introduced software agents into these networks to monitor their traffic. Even though those software agents did not download any files, the researchers say they received more than 400 take-down requests accusing them of participating in the downloads.

The research team, including Michael Piatek a graduate student, says these takedown notices should be viewed with some skepticism. He says, "Because current enforcement techniques are weak, it is possible that anyone, regardless of sharing content or using BitTorrent, could get a D.M.C.A. takedown notice claiming they were committing copyright infringement."

Mr. Kohno, an assistant professor at the university said, "Our study scientifically shows that flaws exists." He adds, "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."

We hope that these kinds of studies help to bring about changes in the way that DMCA takedown notices are issued. Copyright infringement lawsuits have turned into big business for trade groups but they continually fail to consider the innocent victims which are being snagged in their massive net. To accuse someone of a crime is serious business, it is only fair that the method by which they are accused be just as serious.

The Inexact Science Behind D.M.C.A. Takedown Notices [New York Times]
(Photo: Getty)

One distinctive tool in this situation is Rep. Steve Cohen (D-TN), who introduced an amendment that would explicitly deny funding to schools who didn't comply, but then had his staffers pull the amendment at the last minute with the excuse that he wasn't there in person to introduce it. We'll apparently have to look forward to Rep. Cohen's industry-friendly amendment at a later date.

"Controversial college funding bill passed—P2P proviso intact" [ArsTechnica]
(Photo: Getty)

Saul Hansell spoke to Tom Tauke, Verizon's executive vice president for public affairs.

"We generally are reluctant to get into the business of examining content that flows across our networks and taking some action as a result of that content," Tauke said, then gave three reasons why Verizon isn't thrilled with the idea of becoming piracy cops:

1) The slippery slope.

Once you start going down the path of looking at the information going down the network, there are many that want you to play the role of policeman. Stop illegal gambling offshore. Stop pornography. Stop a whole array of other kinds of activities that some may think inappropriate.

2) It opens up potential liability for failing to block copyrighted work.

When you look back at the history of copyright legislation, there has been an effort by Hollywood to pin the liability for copyright violations on the network that transmits the material. It is no secret they think we have deeper pockets than others and we are easy-to-find targets.

3) Privacy.

Anything we do has to balance the need of copyright protection with the desire of customers for privacy.

Verizon Rejects Hollywood's Call to Aid Piracy Fight [New York Times]

Consumers spent $16 billion buying DVDs, about $600 million less than in 2006. But rentals matched last year's total of $7.5 billion.Hollywood shipped 1.7 billion discs — about 30 million more than in 2006 — a sign that DVD remains strong, Smith says. "There is a natural progression to lower price points due to the maturing market," she says. "But there are still titles — big blockbuster releases, collector sets and, mostly, TV DVD compilations — that are generating high price points."

The average selling price of a DVD dropped 0.5% to $14.63.

Despite the downturn in DVD sales, the $23.7 billion total spending on home video dwarfs Hollywood's $9.6 billion box-office total for 2007.

DVD feels first sting of slipping sales [USAToday]
(Photo:feverblue)

If you purchased videos from this service, you'll probably want to read this FAQ for more information.
It appears that your videos will remain playable with Windows Media Player.

Farewell, Walmart Video Download store. Oh Johnny I hardly knew ye.

Walmart Video Downloads

PREVIOUSLY: Walmart's Video Download Service Predictably Sucks

In addition to strengthening both civil and criminal penalties for copyright and trademark infringement, the big development here is the proposed creation of the Office of the United States Intellectual Property Enforcement Representative (USIPER). This is a new executive branch office tasked with coordinating IP enforcement at the national and international level. To do this work internationally, the bill also authorizes US intellectual property officers to be sent to other countries in order to assist with crackdowns there. In addition, the Department of Justice gets additional funding and a new unit to help prosecute IP crimes.

Congress' copyright reform: seize computers, boost penalties, spend money [Ars Technica]

RELATED: Contact Information For 50 Politicians Who Take Campaign Money From The RIAA
Congressmen Who Took Money From The RIAA Send Chiding Letters To Universities

From Salon's Machinist blog:

In the past, Rowling has offered high praise for the HPL. "This is such a great site that I have been known to sneak into an Internet cafe while out writing and check a fact rather than go into a bookshop and buy a copy of Harry Potter (which is embarrassing)," she says on her site. She calls the HPL "a website for the dangerously obsessive; my natural home."

Thanks to such acclaim, Vander Ark recently landed a publishing contract with RDR Books to put out a printed version of the online lexicon. His book was to have gone on sale this fall.

You might suppose that given her appreciation of the online HPL, Rowling would have encouraged the book's publication and sale. But you'd be wrong. On Halloween, Rowling and Warner Bros., which produces the Potter movies, filed suit to stop Vander Ark and RDR from selling the book. Late last week, RDR agreed to halt publication of Vander Ark's Potter lexicon pending a federal judge's review.

In her suit, Rowling, arguably the most well-remunerated writer in history, asserts complete and total control over the Harry Potter creative universe — a stance that, if affirmed by the court, would strike a deep blow to the legions of fans who have added immeasurably to her work online. Her attorneys claim that Vander Ark's book will compete with Rowling's own planned Potter encyclopedia; the lexicon, they say, is thus nothing more than an attempt to "make millions of dollars off the back of Ms. Rowling's creativity."

In a statement, Rowling added: "It is not reasonable, or legal, for anybody, fan or otherwise, to take an author's hard work, re-organize their characters and plots, and sell them for their own commercial gain. However much an individual claims to love somebody else's work, it does not become theirs to sell."

Has J.K. Rowling ever been to a library? Seriously, I truly wonder. Because if she had, she might have seen many examples of exactly the sort of books she describes as "not reasonable." For instance, a list of the allusions in "Ulysses"; or a complete guide to all of the characters in William Faulkner's fiction; or a compilation and detailed analysis of Bob Dylan's lyrics; or a book containing the complete chronology of the events in David Foster Wallace's "Infinite Jest."

Hey, J.K. — can I call you J.K.? — these are known as "reference books," and, like the HPL, they are not mere "reorganizations" of characters and plots.

J.K. Rowling's Crucio curse on fan's Harry Potter book [Machinist]
(Photo:Getty)

From Ars Technica:

Under the terms of the act, which is cosponsored by Rep. George Miller (D-CA) and Rep. Ruben Hinojosa (D-TX), schools will have to inform students of their official policies about copyright infringement during the financial aid application and disbursement process. In addition, students will be warned about the possible civil and criminal penalties for file-sharing as well as the steps the schools take to prevent and detect illicit P2P traffic.

That's not all: schools would have to give students an alternative to file-sharing while evaluating technological measures (i.e., traffic shaping, deep packet inspection) that they could deploy to thwart P2P traffic on campus networks. Many—if not most—schools already closely monitor traffic on their networks, with some (e.g., Ohio University) blocking it altogether, and the bill would provide grants to colleges so they could evaluate different technological solutions.

The most objectionable part of the bill is the part that could force schools into signing up for music subscription services. In order to keep that beloved federal aid money flowing, universities would have to "develop a plan for offering alternatives to illegal downloading or peer-to-peer distribution of intellectual property."

MPAA chairman and CEO Dan Glickman is:

"Intellectual property theft is a worldwide problem that hurts our economy and costs more than 140,000 American jobs every year," said Glickman in a statement. "We are pleased to see that Congress is taking this step to help keep our economy strong by protecting copyrighted material on college campuses."

This is the funding that allows low-income students who would not otherwise have been able to afford college (like me, for example) to get a higher education. In a letter to Congress, the Association of American Universities wrote:

Such an extraordinarily inappropriate and punitive outcome would result in all students on that campus losing their Federal financial aid-including Pell grants and student loans that are essential to their ability to attend college, advance their education and acquire the skills necessary to compete in the 21st century economy. Lower income students, those most in need of Federal financial aid, would be harmed most under the entertainment industry's proposal.

New bill would punish colleges, students who don't become copyright cops [Ars Technica]
LETTER OPPOSING THE INCLUSION OF THE ENTERTAINMENT INDUSTRY PROPOSAL ON ILLEGAL FILE SHARING IN THE HEA (PDF) [AAU]
(Photo:George Miller [D-California, 7th Congressional District])

ArsTechnica has a detailed analysis of the emails, concentrating mostly on MediaDefender's "entrapment" website MiiVi. Earlier this year, MediaDefender was outed for surreptitiously operating the video upload service offering high speed downloads of copyright-protected content. While MiiVi's true purpose is still not known, emails from before and after MediaDefender's affiliation with the site became public show that MiiVi was intended for public use and was not "an internal project" as MediaDefender founder Randy Saaf told the press.

Shortly after the public launch of MiiVi in June, developer Ben Grodsky e-mailed Saaf and his colleagues to inform them that the site was beginning to receive traffic. "We have some success! 12 people have signed up on [the] page. 7 have installed [the] app," wrote Grodsky. "This is from about 3,000 uniques from limewire redirects." Grodksy sent another user count status update a week later revealing that the site had drawn 19,000 unique visitors from LimeWire redirects. He also informed Saaf that his team was "working on putting Google Analytics all over MiiVi" in order to "better track what people are doing on the site."

MediaDefender went to great lengths to obscure its affiliation with MiiVi. "I don't want MediaDefender anywhere in your e-mail replies to people contacting Miivi," Saaf instructed company employees. "Make sure MediaDefender can not be seen in any of the hidden email data crap that smart people can look in." Grodsky and Saaf also began discussing new ways to drive traffic to the MiiVi site. "If we want more users, Dylan's eDonkey messages would get us a lot of Europeans that are a little bit older crowd," Grodsky wrote. "I would like it if our pictures were indexed with goggle [sic]. We need to get as much search traffic as we can," Saaf replied.

In addition to the information about MiiVi and Viide, Ars reports that the New York Attorney General's office and MediaDefender are working together to provide the AG's office with data collected from P2P users.

Although the full scope of the project cannot be extrapolated from the e-mails, the information available indicates that MediaDefender intends to provide the Attorney General's office with information about users accessing pornographic content. Other kinds of information could be involved as well. The e-mails clearly indicate that the data provided by MediaDefender was intended to be used for law enforcement purposes. In an e-mail to Mairs, Bartram says that the system must be specifically designed "to satisfy the legal and evidentiary requirements" before use.

"On your end, the peer-to-peer crawler will be identifying files matching the established search criteria from various hosts," wrote Bartram. "This data will then be collected, filtered for New York resident ip addresses (to the accuracy limits imposed by geo-query tech). The data will then be transferred to us where; on our end, a separate piece of software will use that data to connect into the network and download the file from a host and store it on our servers for evidence retention and further analysis."

One month of media defense on a single track will cost you $2,000. An entire album brings in $4,000 a month.

MediaDefender targets the following networks: FastTrack, Gnutella, IRC, Usenet, DirectConnect, eDonkey, MP2P, Kademlia, Overnet, BitTorrent, SoulSeek, and Shareaza.

More at Ars Technica. Interesting stuff.

Leaked Media Defender e-mails reveal secret government project [Ars Technica]

From the NYT:

At City Hall Park this morning, the association's chairman and chief executive, Dan Glickman, showed off two black Labradors, Lucky and Flo, that have been trained to sniff for DVDs.

Their trainer, Neil Powell, 61, of Newcastle, Northern Island, has been a dog trainer for 35 years, preparing dogs to detect explosives and drugs and perform search and rescue missions. In a phone interview, Mr. Powell said that DVDs were a new area for him.

"The thing that motivated me at the start was to put a stop, or try to put a stop, to pedophilia," he said, noting that the trade in DVDs are often used to produce and exchange child pornography. "That was my highest priority."

It took Mr. Powell more than six months to train Lucky and Flo to detect and act on the scent of polycarbonate, the polymer used in DVDs. Since the spring, Lucky and Flo have been on loan to the Malaysian and Philippine governments, working with law enforcement officials at border crossings, participating in several raids and sniffing out pirated DVDs in storage centers and packages bound for export.

Fresh Off Malaysian Triumph, DVD-Sniffing Dogs Tackle New York [NYT]
(Photo:Liz O. Baylen for The New York Times )

When he complained about it to customer service, they told him "Time Warner/Warner Bros had contracted a security company to film movie theater audiences around the country during the opening weekend of its movies in an effort to prevent piracy." Ew! We think this is scary. If we saw some potential psycho filming us during a movie we'd be weirded out and we'd leave. Especially if it was during a (sort-of) remake of Invasion of the Body Snatchers. Do not go to sleep. Warner Bros. will film you.

We emailed Time Warner for comment, but haven't heard back. Here's Sam's letter:

Dear Consumerist,
Last night (Aug. 19) myself and a friend decided to venture to the local movie theater (AMC Lowes Georgetown 14) to catch the 7:35pm showing of The Invasion. The movie started on time with a moderately full theater and immediately I notice an older gentleman who looked to be about 60 standing in the corner of the theater. Sporting a black suit and a black briefcase, he began to film the audience during the movie. Every 5-10 minutes he would sweep the audience with his video camera, then turn it off and just watch us, then turn the camera back on and sweep again. Now being in Washington DC people are very security conscious and at first I thought he might have been Secret Service but he only stayed in the theater filming for about 45 minutes.

After the movie I went to the Customer Service desk to inquire if they knew about this incident. The manager behind the desk informed me that Time Warner/Warner Bros had contracted a security company to film movie theater audiences around the country during the opening weekend of its movies in an effort to prevent piracy. While I believe steps should be taken to curb piracy, this was one of the most unnerving experiences of my life, and I was not only person that felt this way. I overheard at least 4 other people complain to customer service about this incident, with 2 of them stating that if this ever happened again they would stop using this particular chain of theaters. I was quite surprised at the reaction of the customer service employee, he did not seem to to care one bit that people were opening telling him they would stop using this theater and he brushed off the criticism by shrugging his shoulders and just stared blankly back at those of us who were complaining and passed the blame to Time Warner/Warner Bros.

The question is, what does Time Warner/Warner Bros do with these video tapes? How long are they stored? Is there a massive database of these tapes somewhere? While I do know that laws allow for photography of people without their permission in public places but does this apply to a a movie theater since it is a private business? And if it is not allowed, I was not informed by AMC Lowes that I would be filmed during the movie so what are the legal ramifications of that action?

This email is also being sent to Craig Ramsey who is the Chief Financial Officer for AMC Entertainment and is listed as their Media Contact on their SEC filings and Craig Hoffman of Warner Bros who is listed as their Anti-Piracy press contact.

-Sam

UPDATE: Sam writes to tell us that the CSR he spoke to originally was mistaken and the scary Warner Bros. thug wasn't filming, but was, in fact, using night vision goggles. Sam writes:

This afternoon I received an email from the Director of Guest Services for AMC Theaters, I spoke with her on the phone and she was extremely apologetic about the incident. She also wanted to clear up some misinformation provided by the AMC Customer Service Representative. The man in the suit was not in fact filming the audience, he was using a night vision scope. She assured me that AMC would never allow filming of the audience. Apparently the Georgetown 14 theater has been recently hit by pirates and this was part of the effort put on by the studio to combat such piracy. I explained to her that if this type of audience surveillance was going to happen theater goers need to be notified and she wholeheartedly agreed.

She said that she would be discussing the incident further with the manager of the theater and the CSR that I spoke with after the movie and then speak with the studio about the incident to see what can be done in the future. I was also provided with free movie passes and was told that I would be receiving an official letter of apology from AMC.

From the AP:

Sejas said the theater's assistant manager saw her holding up the digital camera and reported it to the general manager, who called police.

The Marymount University sophomore was charged with a misdemeanor and was banned for life from the Regal Cinemas Ballston Common movie theaters.

"I was terrified," Sejas said. "I was crying. I've never been in trouble before."

Arlington County police spokesman John Lisle said the theater wanted to prosecute the case, which is a first for the police department.

"They were the victim in this case, and they felt strongly enough about it," Lisle said.

Teen Faces Charges For Recording 20-Second Movie Clip [NBC4] (Thanks, Ian!)
(Photo:Wikipedia)

The site is fairly entertaining and contains the sentence:

"Try as it might, the NFL does not have complete control over any pictures, descriptions, or "accounts" of football games. Despite what they tell you, your "account" of the game over the workplace watercooler is not a felony."

The site also contains the full FTC complaint, which we plan on reading later over tea and cookies.
(PDF)

Defend Fair Use
(Photo:Paul Keleher)

From the Wall Street Journal:

The group wants the FTC to investigate and order copyright holders to stop wording warnings in what it sees as a misrepresentative way.

"We look forward to receiving their complaint and reviewing it," said an FTC spokeswoman.

Many warnings "materially misrepresent U.S. copyright law, particularly the fundamental built-in First Amendment accommodations which serve to safeguard the public interest," the complaint alleges. CCIA President Ed Black said the warnings create a "chilling effect," dissuading consumers from using portions of the content in ways that are lawful.

The CCIA said copyright holders should let audiences know they may have a right to reproduce some of the work. They even provide examples of how it can be done, as in this warning in the John Wiley & Son's 2007 book "Hotel California." The warning says, "No part of this publication may be reproduced...except as permitted under Section 107 or 108 of the United States Copyright Act," referring to the sections that deal with fair use and reproduction by libraries and archives.

Google, Others Contest Copyright Warnings [Wall Street Journal] (Thanks, Roger!)
CCIA

Violation of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act is against the law. If you are caught downloading copyrighted material, you will lose your ResNet privileges forever. No second notices, no excuses, no refunds. One violation and your ResNet internet access is gone for as long as you reside on campus.

University of Kansas adopts one-strike policy for copyright infringement [Ars Technica]
ReNet [University of Kansas]
(Photo: AP)

AT&T's recently launched television service has made the telecom hungry for content, and pliant to the RIAA's and MPAA's wishes. Like a KGB agent in need of rubles, The New AT&T is willing to become an equal-opportunity mole, spying not just for the people via the NSA, but for the entertainment associations as well.

Despite the FCC's claims of a vibrant, bustling market for internet service, switching ISPs will not help you escape AT&T clutches.

In addition to running a massive network of its own, AT&T runs a good chunk of the backbone infrastructure in the US. It's a rare bit of traffic that can make it to its destination without passing on to an AT&T-owned network. If the company deploys its anti-piracy technology to all data passing through its networks, AT&T's "solution" could affect most US Internet users. In addition, many US residents have limited broadband choices.

AT&T willing to spy for NSA, MPAA, and RIAA [Ars Technica]

— BEN POPKEN

RELATED: A good explanation of what this is all about, over at BoingBoing.
PREVIOUSLY: Digg Goes Ape$#@*!

BEFORE

AFTER

Now, every single story on the front page contains the cracked number in some way.

The madness began after not only was the initial story deleted, but the user's account was deleted as well. Other people who submitted stories linking to the number also got their accounts deleted and their sites received takedown notices. Even people who submitted stories about the deleting of other accounts, stories which did not contain the number, also got deleted. That's when things really got bonkers.

Users are hiding the number in all sorts ways. One story claimed that a new Jules Verne manuscript was found, entitled, "09:F9:11:02:9D:74:E3:5B:D8:... Leagues Under the Sea." Others link to pictures of the number. A new one says Jesus has "the secret key." Others coyly ask, "anyone know what this number is?" Diggers are digging the stories like crazy, trying to keep the number on the front page and thumb their nose at Digg and the MPAA.

Screencap of the chaos, inside...

Fostering internal civil disobedience cements Digg's status as a democratic news site. The question is whether it can endure what it created. Will all the stories get removed? Will all the users that submitted them get banned? Will Kevin Rose get his panties sued off if they don't fully comply with the MPAA's directive? Will people ever understand that trying to ban something on the internet only ends up making it propagate like meth bunnies?!?!

It'll probably be all over by morning, with only a top-ranked Digg story to recap the memories. — BEN POPKEN

RELATED: The New HD-DVD/Blu-Ray Hack: What It Might Mean For Us [Gadget Lab]

Valenti was a special assistant and confidant to President Lyndon Johnson when he was lured to Hollywood in 1966 by movie moguls Lew Wasserman and Arthur Krim. A lifelong film lover, he once cited the 1966 film ''A Man for All Seasons'' as his all-time favorite.

When he took over as president of the Motion Picture Association of America, Valenti was caught between Hollywood's outdated system of self-censorship and the liberal cultural explosion taking place in America.

Valenti abolished the industry's restrictive Hays code, which prohibited explicit violence and frank treatment of sex, and in 1968 oversaw creation of today's letter-based ratings system.

''While I believe that every director, studio has the right to make the movies they want to make, everybody else has a right not to watch it,'' Valenti told The Associated Press shortly before his retirement in 2004. ''All we do is give advance cautionary warnings and say this is what we think is in this movie.''

In the years since Valenti designed the system very little about it has changed. A new rating, PG-13, was added in the mid-80s. "X" was changed to NC-17 in the 90s. An NC-17 rating all but ensures a film will not receive wide distribution, a fact that has been the focus of much of the debate surrounding the system.

Valenti was 85. —MEGHANN MARCO

Film Lobbyist Valenti Dies At 85 [NYT]

On Monday, the dispute got even hotter as the United States formally sued China in world trade court.

American companies, industry groups, the White House and Congress are united on the issue, says Robert Merges, who teaches intellectual property law at the University of California-Berkeley. The unity, he said, stems from a desire to stop Chinese piracy. And they want China to stop making it difficult for American companies to sell legal versions of their movies and music.
...
But it's hard for China's central government to convince mayors and police chiefs in towns and cities that they need to shut down shops owned by a resident, or a factory producing pirated movies that employs 100 local people.

U.S. Takes Chinese Trade Complaints to WTO [NPR]
(Photo: amyadoyzie)

The trade groups have proposed an alternative measure that would allow the use of pretexting "or other investigative techniques" when pursuing their copyright claims.

[The trade groups] said investigators sometimes pose as someone else to obtain bootlegged CDs or movies and to break into online piracy rings. "Basically, we want criminals to feel comfortable that who they're dealing with is probably some other criminal and let us in on what's going on," said Brad Buckles, the RIAA's executive vice president for anti-piracy.

Recording, movie industries lobby for permission to deceive [L.A. Times]
(Photo: 03|23|07)

This is the MPAA list of the top "pirate" universities, along with the number of copyright infringement notices they received.

1,198 Columbia University
934 University of Pennsylvania
891 Boston University
889 University of California at Los Angeles
873 Purdue University
860 Vanderbilt University
813 Duke University
792 Rochester Institute of Technology
765 University of Massachusetts
740 University of Michigan
714 University of California at Santa Cruz
704 University of Southern California
637 University of Nebraska at Lincoln
636 North Carolina State University
586 Iowa State University
575 University of Chicago
562 University of Rochester
550 Ohio University
527 University of Tennessee
506 Michigan State University
457 Virginia Polytechnic Institute
455 Drexel University
447 University of South Florida
405 Stanford University
398 University of California at Berkeley

The MPAA's Most Wanted [Chronicle] (Thanks, Joshua!)

In the old days, we watched Oscars on television. We might have seen two or three movies up for an award. We might have had a favorite. We could only hope the "Academy" agreed. No more. Why should the "Academy" be the only ones to judge this year's winners?

"OscarTorrents is the Oscars as it should be — everyone can download the year's nominations using the popular BitTorrent service, watch the movies, then use our rating system to choose their favourites. Why restrict the voting to a few bought-off jurors when the whole world can have their say?"

What an innovative spin on the Oscars. On the advice of counsel -hear that, MPAA?- we stress that we do not condone movie theft. Stolen movies make baby Jesus cry. Baby Jesus OscarTorrents recommends Azureus to download the torrents they provide.

Be sure to visit OscarTorrents on Oscar night, when your votes will be compared against the votes of the "Academy." — CAREY GREENBERG-BERGER

OscarTorrents
Azureus

Example:

A man in an elevator is shot in the head (blood sprays on the wall of the elevator car and it pools under him on the floor). Two men are shot in the head (we see bloody wounds and blood pools under them on the floor). A man is shot in the head (blood pours from the wound and pools on the floor). A man shoots a man in the head, and he falls onto a table and then the floor (we see blood on his head).

Kids-in-mind [via BoingBoing]

But how does that happen? Reader Andrew F. wrote us in to explain:

The sign is probably real and up at a real circuit city, but not overall corporate approved signage.

While most of the retailers: Best Buy, Circuit City, Future Shop (Canadian), etc are not franchises, certain marketing practices of their operate in a similar way. Working at multiple different stores in a single chain one of the most common things I would notice is the individual non-company approved ad campaigns we'd have in stores for services we thought were practical or would make us money. This bears all the earmarks of being the exact same type of sign.

He points out that it's a printed Word document and the lack of the usual corporate watermarks.

Come on, Circuit City. Don't pussy out. Roll this out to all your stores. You'll be our corporate hero.

Unfortunately, one time out of ten, you manage to punch a UFC Fighting Champion in the face, who proceeds to kick you so hard your spine goes exploding out of your body.

The MPAA has gone around randomly punching a lot of people in the face, then asking them for their wallets on top of that. But they finally sued the wrong guy: Shawn Hogan, the multi-millionaire CEO of Digital Point Solutions, who was accused of downloading an illegal copy of Meet the Fockers off BitTorrent. He didn't and he's ready to take the bastards down.

"They're completely abusing the system," Hogan said about the MPAA's extortionist legal tactics. "I would spend well into the millions on this." Attaboy, Shawn! Kick their skull out of their fucking heads.

Shawn Hogan, Hero [Wired]

Edit: We originally kept calling the MPAA the RIAA in this post. It's been corrected, but honestly, same difference.

The comic is drawn by Randall Munroe, a 21 year old player with NASA robots who says he goes, "to goth clubs dressed as a frat guy so I can stand around and look terribly uncomfortable."

[xkcd via boingboing]

Well, now there's more details on the industry initiative to offer downloadable movies to customers. Amongst the tasty new details is the news that not only will digital movies be much more expensive to purchase than DVDs, but you won't be able to back them up to a DVD-R or send them to a portable media player. The software will be heavily DRMed (mark our words: expect another Sony-esque rootkit fiasco). Not only that, but are you a Mac user, or just like Firefox? You're shit out of luck — you can only buy the movies through an IE only website.

We hate to say it, but we tend to agree with the conspiracy theorists on this one. Every detail the movie industry releases about legally-downloaded movies makes it seem like they are purposely sabotaging it so they can "prove" to themselves that digital distribution doesn't work and continue to vilify as "prates" consumers who rip their own DVDs to other devices.

Legally Downloadable Movies Come With Heavy Restrictions [Consumer Affairs]

...

!!!

Dear Universal — are you out of your fucking gourds? Thirty-five dollars? That costs more than heroin.

What a sound strategy to discourage rampant movie piracy: gouge your legitimate customers.

Coming soon: Download-to-own films [CNN]

Vid of a guy, Mr. Clarke, bitch slapping the "copyright is theft" argument. Favorite quote is the MPAA gal saying, "Intellectual property and physical property are no different."

Here's a podcast of the entire discussion.

[via Powazek]

We go on quite a bit, so more after the jump...

We think the distinction is important to make, because various media industries are doing their damnedest to prosecute and persecute file sharers, as opposed to adjusting their core business strategies to market to them. The legality of file sharing and technologies are largely gray areas in international law still... mostly because organizations like the RIAA and MPAA hope to never have to back-up their claims. Instead try to make sure it never gets to court (and the legality clarified) by relentless class action lawsuits against not criminals, but people who recognize the Internet for what it is: an amazing way to disseminate ideas, art and culture in the 21st century. For the average Joe caught in these organization's targets, they usually can not afford a protracted defense, and instead must capitulate, regardless of the legal precedent for the industries' claims.

We're against piracy for the simple reason that we think those who entertain us and give us delight should be able to make a living off it. But we're fascinated by this article on The Pirate Bay — a huge Swedish Bittorrent site for file sharing — simply because they are launching a battle against the media industries who hope to maintain the status quo by cowing the rest of us. In Sweden, file sharing laws are more murky than elsewhere, and the status of Bittorrent trackers break no laws. Because of this, The Pirate Bay has been able to operate with impunity even while other similar torrent sites are shutdown.

Amazingly, in response to recent rumblings that Sweden's file sharing laws were about to change, The Pirate Bay has formed a Pirate political party, promising to "to strengthen Swedish privacy protections, weaken copyright laws, abolish the EU Data Retention Directive and roll back government surveillance legislation". Even more amazing, they seem like they might actually win some seats on Swedish parliament: only four percent of the country's file-sharers (Correction! 4% of the nation's voters) need vote for them to get some seats.

Even if you don't agree with their message — and frankly, we don't — it's still a fascinating look at the file sharing movement and how they can fight the intimidation of the big media business.

Link: The Pirate Bay: Here to Stay?