Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

when are they suing the US States for helping pirates drive on roads and highways and transport pirated movies on railways ?

when are they suing the US States for helping pirates drive on roads and highways and transport pirated movies on railways ?

We should dynamite all the bridges, just to be sure nobody carries anything illegal across them.

But of those "Well known for" movies, I've literally never heard of any of them..

I love articles where they use "Well known" as meaning "Known by a small percentage of the population" or "Known by the author".

Dallas Buyer's Club is a great movie. Matthew McConaughey suddenly decided to become a serious actor. It's about a guy illegally importing drugs in the 1980s to treat HIV and aids patients.

Dallas Buyer's Club is a great movie. Matthew McConaughey suddenly decided to become a serious actor. It's about a guy illegally importing drugs in the 1980s to treat HIV and aids patients.

Dallas Buyer's Club is a great movie. Matthew McConaughey suddenly decided to become a serious actor. It's about a guy illegally importing drugs in the 1980s to treat HIV and aids patients.

It also won the Oscars for best actor and best supporting actor.

Dallas Buyer's Club is a great movie. Matthew McConaughey suddenly decided to become a serious actor. It's about a guy illegally importing drugs in the 1980s to treat HIV and aids patients.

Dallas Buyer's Club is a great movie. Matthew McConaughey suddenly decided to become a serious actor. It's about a guy illegally importing drugs in the 1980s to treat HIV and aids patients.

So... the movie companies want to sue AT&T for its customers pirating a movie about a guy pirating drugs -- irony?

That at least sounds better than 99% of the dross that's been released in the last few years.

I have not heard of any of these either.

they are fringe, which means chances are they're way better cinema (as in more interesting, original, telling and intellectually stimulating) than the average industrial entertainment aimed at the lowest common denominator. you should try it sometime.

anyhow, i was puzzled that small studios decided going after big utility companies. they have not much to win, and i even doubt they can afford the lawyers needed for this. then i read "texas" and "voltage pictures", which has a history of going after torrenter

I already do that. Will probably mean I will not see the 3rd season of the Orville because I found the only option here is with German subtitles that cannot be removed. Thanks, but no thanks. If you insult me as a customer, I stop being your customer. A pity.

well, since witnessing how creators can be just as obnoxious as these companies at the slightest opportunity, my media budget is zero.

you wanna do art? fine. art is free. you charge for it? ok, then it isn't art, it's just a product, and i'm not interested. get a fckn job. or don't, but don't cry me rivers because society doesn't give you a special award you think you deserve for being special. it's just embarrassing.

Smith&Wesson, for making tools that facilitate and enable bank robberies and murders. Black&Decker, for making tools that facilitate and enable burglary and larceny. Zippo, Bic and Dupont, for making arsony tools. Montana and Ironlak, for enabling and promoting defacement and defilement.

And that list could go on and on. If you think of a company, I'll certainly find a way they promote something illegal.

Smith&Wesson, for making tools that facilitate and enable bank robberies and murders.

Smith&Wesson, for making tools that facilitate and enable bank robberies and murders.

Yeah, someone takes a shot at that every so often, and California has even taken steps to enable it. Ultimately it always fails, though. Given that we have a constitutional right to own firearms, you can't successfully be going after companies that make these legal products. And you shouldn't be able to, either. That's a door you cannot close. There's still room to go after firearms manufacturers on other bases, like advertising.

This isn't the same thing, though. For one thing, there is an established legal process for reporting copyright infringement to ISPs — it's a legal obligation created by the DMCA for ISPs to disconnect copyright infringers [nolo.com], whether downloaders or uploaders. ISPs are not required to self-police [harvard.edu], but they absolutely are legally obligated to respond to complaints. In fact, ISPs are not required to self-police in part because of CDA Section 230. They otherwise might be held liable for customers who are distributing copyrighted material, especially if they are utilizing their hosting resources. For a while there, ISPs commonly provided some low end shared hosting to all customers, and I presume that some still do, but am not terribly interested in using it so I haven't checked.

TL;DR: ISPs are legally obligated to respond to copyright infringement complaints.

As much as I object to this action, your examples are not quite the same thing, legally speaking.

Those companies make physical products. Once bought they can't control them. AT&T provides a service that is on-going.

When notified that a subscriber to their service is infringing copyright, it is possible for AT&T to act. I don't think they should, but by continuing to supply that service it does open them up to liability. There are valid defences, such as questioning the quality of the evidence (becau

AT&T could only control how you use their wires if they snooped on you, something they can't do legally.

By the same logic, you could require S&W to add tracking devices to their weapons that also transmit fingerprints of whoever holds them.

Not entirely accurate. AT&T provide a DNS server, for example. They could control what sites that returns IP addresses for. That's the basis of many blocking orders, that the ISP has no legitimate reason to return the IP address of the Pirate Bay, once it's been pointed out to them that it's 99% copyright infringing material.

The difference between DNS entries and tracking devices is that AT&T already operates a DNS server. It's one thing to omit technology you don't have and which would greatly degr

C'mon, we both know that it wouldn't change jack shit. But maybe it would pacify the lawyers and as long as that's the case... yeah, let's do that.

AT&T could only control how you use their wires if they snooped on you, something they can't do legally.

AT&T could only control how you use their wires if they snooped on you, something they can't do legally.

AT&T doesn't have to successfully control how you use their wires. They only have to make a good faith effort. If you just VPN your way out of their network then they're never going to know unless someone else does the necessary sleuthing, figures out where your packets are coming from through traffic analysis or some other such PITA, and complains to them. But they are obligated by DMCA to respond to copyright violation complaints.

By the same logic, you could require S&W to add tracking devices to their weapons that also transmit fingerprints of whoever holds them.

By the same logic, you could require S&W to add tracking devices to their weapons that also transmit fingerprints of whoever holds them.

Maybe you could in fact do that by law, but it has not been done. The DM

Those companies make physical products. Once bought they can't control them. AT&T provides a service that is on-going.

Those companies make physical products. Once bought they can't control them. AT&T provides a service that is on-going.

Should a power utility be compelled to disconnect customers due to unsubstantiated claims their service is being used to facilitate copyright infringement?

What about the landlord? They are providing shelter and facilities used to facilitate copyright infringement. Should they be compelled to evict people from their homes based on unsubstantiated claims the property is being used to facilitate copyright infringement?

When notified that a subscriber to their service is infringing copyright, it is possible for AT&T to act. I don't think they should, but by continuing to supply that service it does open them up to liability. There are valid defences, such as questioning the quality of the evidence (because in the past these guys have often been wrong about who was doing the copyright infringement), but it's not clear cut.

When notified that a subscriber to their service is infringing copyright, it is possible for AT&T to act. I don't think they should, but by continuing to supply that service it does open them up to liability. There are valid defences, such as questioning the quality of the evidence (because in the past these guys have often been wrong about who was doing the copyright infringement), but it's not clear cut.

Vigilante justice is what makes this country great. Nothing better than empowering indivi

Should a power utility be compelled to disconnect customers due to unsubstantiated claims their service is being used to facilitate copyright infringement? What about the landlord? They are providing shelter and facilities used to facilitate copyright infringement. Should they be compelled to evict people from their homes based on unsubstantiated claims the property is being used to facilitate copyright infringement?

Should a power utility be compelled to disconnect customers due to unsubstantiated claims their service is being used to facilitate copyright infringement?

What about the landlord? They are providing shelter and facilities used to facilitate copyright infringement. Should they be compelled to evict people from their homes based on unsubstantiated claims the property is being used to facilitate copyright infringement?

That's an interesting defence that AT&T could use, if they argue that internet access is as essential as power and shelter.

Vigilante justice is what makes this country great.

Vigilante justice is what makes this country great.

That's why the court needs to protect individuals from big corporations that can easily outspend them in court. The reason they are going after the ISPs is because they have failed to get the individuals, which is actually a pretty good defence IMHO.

Not like copyright holders with evidence of crimes couldn't provide it to the state.

Not like copyright holders with evidence of crimes couldn't provide it to the state.

It's not a crime though, so the state won't care. Copyright infringement is a civil matter.

That's an interesting defence that AT&T could use, if they argue that internet access is as essential as power and shelter.

That's an interesting defence that AT&T could use, if they argue that internet access is as essential as power and shelter.

Can you imagine that? They're not going to shoot themselves in the foot in that way. After the over $200B that AT&T has received to expand broadband internet access to every one of their POTS customers (which obviously they have failed to do, despite the decreasing interest in their complete garbage POTS service) they can't use that argument or they may well be asked to explain where that money went.

That's an interesting defence that AT&T could use, if they argue that internet access is as essential as power and shelter.

That's an interesting defence that AT&T could use, if they argue that internet access is as essential as power and shelter.

The issue is deprivation without due process. How "essential" something is does not actually matter. This device was intended to help people see just how ridiculous the underlying argument is.

It's not a crime though, so the state won't care. Copyright infringement is a civil matter.

It's not a crime though, so the state won't care. Copyright infringement is a civil matter.

Civil cases are adjudicated in courts of law. The court has all the power in the world to compel production of records from ISPs and determine consequences even where those responsible are not known a-priori.

That's why the court needs to protect individuals from big corporations that can easily outspend them in court.

That's why the court needs to protect individuals from big corporations that can easily outspend them in court.

The reason they are going after the ISPs is because they have failed to get the individuals, which is actually a pretty good defence IMHO.

The reason they are going after the ISPs is because they have failed to get the individuals, which is actually a pretty good defence IMHO.

In the United States of America everyone is entitled to due process. It doesn't m

Now hear this, now hear this... strike the colors, and hoist the Jolly Roger.

I mean, for anyone who wishes to watch the works of these alleged film-makers.

Support those you like. I buy a lot of anime on blu-ray. I buy the few movies that are worth my time and I have to really like them, for them to be on my shelf.

The rest go unwatched, un-noticed, unless plundered in the high seas due to the duchebaggery of the filmmakers / distributor.

I ejected all things Metallica from this house decades ago when they t

Metallica forgot who made them.

Metallica forgot who made them.

They forgot that members of the band had confessed to copying tapes themselves, too. What a bag of lames. Napster bad!

Heh I didn't know that. I shut them completely out of my life. They never were a huge part of my life, but I found their behavior re: napster egregiously two-faced.

What was that about those who live in glass houses?

Probably easier to list who didn't dupity dupe dupe tapes back then. I went through two double-well cassette decks in those days, wore them out. Couldn't afford the good stuff like revox or nakamichi, so ended up with technics.

And that retarded mentality still exists today, in youtube. So m

next thing you know, they'll register as churches

They did that decades ago! [kopimistsamfundet.se]

Exactly this. This is well trodden path and many media companies have been down it before.

Here is what will happen. AT&T will agree to block the sites in the list, and they will. The plaintiff gets what they want, and AT&T gets off the hook. The only people that get affect by this is joe sixpack casual downloader. The people that actually know what they are doing will barely notice it.

Eventually, what will happen is the blocked site, like piratebay, will change IP or something, and the blo

Physically, in that they have demonstrably (as the Netflix Effect proved) priced themselves out of the market. Thus, people are physically not buying their shit, because it is too expensive, and or-- not even available in their locality, because "REGIONAL MARKETING AND PRICING!"

Metaphorically, in that the general public is generally well aware of "Hollywood Accounting". They might have won in court, but not in the public trust or mindset. The public KNOWS they made plenty of money, and just dont want to pay any royalties or other obligations to anyone but themselves. The public is well aware that the prices charged in the stores do not in any way reflect actual costs of distribution. People are not buying their shit.

While true that it has indeed been conclusively shown that piracy has no negative impact on box office (and in fact, the inverse has been consistently shown) returns, the wokeness of the subject matter has not been investigated in that manner, and thus any such suggestion is not currently supportable.

Rather, it is supportable to say that the fairy fart fantasy numbers poofed out by media executives, that think every pirate is a lost sale (Despite an epic mount everest sized mountain of evidence to the contr

I have a theory that Hollywood has embarked on a new kind of copy protection system. Make shit so bad that nobody wants to copy it. For the most part it has worked on me. I've not been to a theater in three years, so no overpriced popcorn or drinks from me.

If there is something I actually want to watch, I'll find out what streaming service it's on. Watch it and then unsubscribe before my 1 week trial is over.

I have a theory that Hollywood has embarked on a new kind of copy protection system. Make shit so bad that nobody wants to copy it. For the most part it has worked on me. I've not been to a theater in three years, so no overpriced popcorn or drinks from me. If there is something I actually want to watch, I'll find out what streaming service it's on. Watch it and then unsubscribe before my 1 week trial is over.

I have a theory that Hollywood has embarked on a new kind of copy protection system. Make shit so bad that nobody wants to copy it. For the most part it has worked on me. I've not been to a theater in three years, so no overpriced popcorn or drinks from me.

If there is something I actually want to watch, I'll find out what streaming service it's on. Watch it and then unsubscribe before my 1 week trial is over.

I have not been to a movie theater in 20 years, partly because the content that show is generally CRAP and partly because movie theaters are overpriced (now GROSSLY overpriced) for my budget.

I will also wait for the content to appear on a streaming service or borrow a friend's DVD/BluRay disc.

Don't forget the rise of large and wide 4K/HDR televisions and 5.1 sound rigs that make for a home viewing experience that, for most movies, is just as good as you'd get in the theater. Also, at home the popcorn costs pennies; or you can eat real food if you want; the soda is cheap or you can have beer or a cocktail; you don't have to deal with talkers, screaming kids, or cellphone light; or you can talk, let your kids run amok, or dick around on you phone instead of watching without being rude to others;

if people go through the complications of downloading stuff instead of paying for it, it's always for the same issues * people don't have enough money to pay for 20 different services each with exclusive content * stuff like HDCP prevents people from playing media they have paid for for reason that eludes even the most knowledgeable * people boycotting the media mafia for the exact reason they are f****ing crybabies with broken business models

You forgot "Because it's not available in their country for whatever reason."

No, the DMCA gave them broad powers to do this kind of fuckery.

The campaign finance dollars must flow!

Sorry, but the DMCA is part of a treaty.

Might want to look into that more closely.

Sorry, but the DMCA is part of a treaty. Might want to look into that more closely.

Sorry, but the DMCA is part of a treaty.

Might want to look into that more closely.

What's their solution for that. Claim copyright infringement when somebody finds it on some torrent site, but then fail to provide appropriate sales channels?

I'm currently seeding "my name is Bill W." for the common good. I'm looking for "white light/black rain", so I can seed that one too, also for the common good.

My name is Bill W. is about the story of the cofounder of Alcoholics Anonymous, perhaps his story might make some suffering alcoholic see that he's got a problem.

White light/black rain is about t

What's their solution for that. Claim copyright infringement when somebody finds it on some torrent site, but then fail to provide appropriate sales channels?

What's their solution for that. Claim copyright infringement when somebody finds it on some torrent site, but then fail to provide appropriate sales channels?

Copyright infringement isn't mitigated by content being unavailable for purchase. It should be, but that's not how the law is written.

Well, over here (the Netherlands) sometimes laws can be violated, when it's for the common good.

I wonder how that works out for you with international law, which unfortunately is what copyright is... if I read [wipo.int] this correctly (I read it twice and I'm still not sure;) for .nl since January 10, 1975.

IANALITNL however, or anywhere else.

When a movie or TV show releases in one country 90 days before it comes to other countries it is just begging to be pirated.

I seem to recall that DBC in a negative light vis-a-vi their "rights protection" racket along with a bunch of pretty skank operators including a few that were highlighted on Grok Law in times past. It has, by my experience, come to be my opinion anything I see Dallas Buyers Club involved in anything, my suspicions are immediately aroused that: a. Something is fishy b. It's not the defendants. c. Never turns out well for DBC reputation wise.

The title still doesn't spellcheck, get your act together, /.

Has everyone forgotten Sony Music vs Cox Cable? Sony won a billion dollars in that one.

Has everyone forgotten Sony Music vs Cox Cable? Sony won a billion dollars in that one.

Last I knew Cox was continuing their appeals against that judgement (so far not successfully, but a potential billion dollar savings can pay for a lot of lawyers to keep trying).

One should also note that Charter Communications (as the successor of Bright House Networks) just settled a similar case that was set to go to trial in Tampa last month. Details of the settlement are not known, but many presume Charter offered something substantial to avoid trial and another potentially large judgement.

Voltage Pictures was acquired by a chinese company in 2016. They should just stick that lawsuit in the garbage can, piracy is a way of life in China.

It's Odd that ATT has not cited the 512(A) DMCA Harbor for Providers who merely transmit, route, or connect to material Instead of the 512(C) Safe harbor for websites, caching providers, and information services.

As a broadband provider they are Not involved in storing or caching data. Therefore, their Awareness of infringement is irrelevent - An ISP is a common carrier: They are not responsible for which websites users connect to. This Safe harbor provision does Not require the Broadband provide

There may be more comments in this discussion. Without JavaScript enabled, you might want to turn on Classic Discussion System in your preferences instead.

More Bad News for Antarctica's 'Doomsday Glacier': It's Disintegrating Faster Than We Predicted

Scientists Found Genetic Mutations In Every Astronaut Blood Sample They Studied

The rich get rich, and the poor get poorer. The haves get more, the have-nots die.