"Defendants reap millions of dollars in revenue from their on-line trading bazarrs by selling advertising they display to their users while they engage in infringement."

This is one of the statements made by Hollywood in Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios, Inc., et al, versus Grokster Ltd., et al.

If you'd like to read the while thing, go to the (EFF) Electronic Frontier Foundation site here.

It's good stuff - lies, intrigue, raw emotion.

MGM, et al, could make a sci fi movie based on it.

Just as lots of websites reap revenue by selling advertising. It's perfectly legal and is a red herring.

Yeah they have lived the fantasy for so long they actually believe their own lies now...Hollywood can't even get a fiction story right...its been that way for years..I'm a big Tom Clancy fan, I've read everything he has put out most several times..including his joint projects such as Net Force, and Op Center. Hollywood changed the storyline in "Clear and Present Danger" although the casting was dead on. But in Sum of all Fears they destroyed it...Knowing the story, I couldn't even follow the movie. It was the worst peice of garbage I've ever seen ( well at least since Attack of the 50 ft Woman)

What, they can get revenue from selling advertising space? Like the commercials I see before the coming attractions? Or the coming attractions that I see before the movie? Or the product placements in the movies themselves?

Hey Kettle, meet the Pot.

Goofy, well said. Perhaps you should contact grokster's lawyers and offer to testify. We all should. They should get a courthouse full of pissed off moviegoers sick of advertising that we're paying to see.

yeah well, hollywood is the most anti-american place in america. most of there sympathies lies with the islamic extremists. especially in the distribution.

Is it my imagination or are the hard news cable channels doing alot more specials on Music Artists then they were a couple of months ago?

Are we seeing the "softer side" of the RIAA??? LOL LOL LOL

Most of the featured artists wouldn't get a second look from me.

Let me get this right..... its ok for RIAA to make money, but its not ok for Grokster to make money. I think Grokster/Kazaa/Morpheus etc. should sue the RIAA for scareing their "clientele" away with these frivilous lawsuits and damaging thier livelyhood.

what was that about glass houses and rocks?

What about all the ppl in manufacturing that make all those blank cd's, cdr's, cdrw's, dvdr's, mp3 players, computers, the list goes on..... they are all gonna suffer if the RIAA gets their way too

I got hit 8 times by : 216.122.250.121 between 5:23pm and 5:25pm
the address comes back to :

216.122.0.0 - 216.122.255.255
Lightrealm Communications
401 Park Place Suite 100A
Kirkland, WA, 98033
US

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Interland
asnadmin@interland.com
+1-206-988-6010

anyone else get hit by this guy or have any more info?

Oh BadGuin. Don't you know that the only industry that maters is the music industry? Who cares about any of the other people in the world? The CDR, MP3 makers. ISPs shelling out their profits to sell out their customers. People being sued into ruin. They dont mater. Its not important. The music industry is the only real buisness. Its people the only real people. Everone and everything else are just hollow shells pretending to be what they are.

but Bill , at least the 50ft woman had a huuuuge rack !!! (well ok that may be sexist but that alone made it better than the sum of all fears!)
WABBITMAN

badguin lightrealm is an internet web hosting company I just went to their site... Sounds like a salesman was at your door

So why don't these dumbasses put up their own site with downloads and start reaping some of these millions in advertising instead of trying to sue their fans?

Because the indies still won't need them. It's not about the money, it's about control.

You're absolutely right gdziemann. Money is the afterthought.. the real issue these people have is thay can't stand that they don't have "control" like they used to. The ramifications are monumental.

Check this out for reading, it's a bit "out-there" but hell, who knows:

http://www.star-one.org.uk/music/secret.htm

There's another book about control of the universe via music, but I can't seem to locate that one right off.. it's called "The Music of Time" or something along those lines.

If you dig deeper, these companies aren't just in it for th emusic, there's a whole matrix of products and societal implications behind the charade.

Personally, I think in light of all this, it's adamn shame the type of music they are hawking to the world commercially.

It's almost as if they want people to be brainless robotic clones or something.

Yeah, I agree, Hollywood can't do anything right. They've allowed two crackheads to screw over Star Trek to the point that the new stuff is unwatchable, they constantly change the story of a book to suit the actor (as seen in Sum of All Fears), they try to get kids to watch their crap by making McDonalds sell toys tied to the movie and then, when all else fails, they make a crappy sequel or prequel to a movie that did really good (as seen with Dumb and Dumberer).

Within the past ten years we've had really good movies come out that they have to over edit on TV now because 19 crackheads decided they wanted to attack us. And now every movie has to watch what they do or say for fear of bringing back the memories of that day. Gee, I don't think Hollywood did that after Japan attacked Pearl Harbor. No, they simply made movies where the Japanese got their asses handed to them over and over. Why hasn't Hollywood gone and done the same thing with terrorists? Simple, the world is too PC now. That's why the Islamic terrorists of Sum of All Fears morphed into white supremesists and Nazis. The lone Muslim that showed up in the movie got sympathy 'cause he died of radiation poison. He wasn't villified for finding the bomb, no, that's just not done. He was just a dupe in a larger plan of the white supremesists.

Stupid.

The following excerpt is paraphrased from this blog by Earl Mardle.

http://www.livejournal.com/users/rlmrdl/34020.html


Everything Being Changed

At the beginning of every REVOLUTION the claim goes out that "this will change everything". In the middle somewhere, disillusion sets in and we hear "its all a crock". But further down the road we realize that the revolution HAS changed everything, just not how we thought it would.

It happened with TV which didn't change the way we taught our kids in school, although it transformed their education.

And now the internet has,in the blink of an eye, transformed us again and the real news is that, it is about the shifting of power. Loss of control on the part of the traditional companies who want to continue to bombard us with advertising to make us buy stuff.

The internet has neutralized spin. When you can't open your mouth without having have the entire planet climbing down your throat inspecting your tonsils, new strategies are in order.

The internet can't be controlled and people are finding ways to become very well informed. Every person can have a voice and that is incredibly democratic and inclusive.

The internet has extended the range and sophistication of communications exponentially. We now have the ability to organize globally.

People are developing communities of interest around the globe to explore their knowledge and feelings, form opinions, support each other, and provide courage and understanding via informal channels.

And if those channels start to lose their value to us, whether it be because of a decline in quality or excessive advertising or bias, we cut them off. Simple as that.

The balance of power is shifting and the big boys don't like it.

MPAA reaps millions of dollars by advertising movie start times in such a way that will trick consumers into paying a ridiculous amount of money to watch commercials for future films before the "main event" appears on screen and seems to be less than advertised and lower budget than the previews.

It's like paying a huge sum for a seminar and listening to a hundred plugs for their sponsors and future seminars before a guy comes out and does something that technically can be considered a seminar.

MPAA reaps millions using dishonest advertising techniques.

I ditto goofycaca here.

I don't have as much of a problem with the MPAA's bitching. They have more reason too, they can actually lose money.

Here's a little of my perspective in comparing why I hate the RIAA so much more than the MPAA, though in many ways they are basically the same evil entity.

-Films cost millions upon millions to make
-CD's cost approx. $2 maximum from production to shelf.

-Yet films cost $8.50 per head.
-While CD's cost $20.

-Films last an hour and a half. Sometimes 3 hours.
-CD's last 45 minutes.

-If you don't like a movie, you can (believe it or not) go back to the box office and tell them you want your money back
-If you don't like a CD you're screwed.

I'm done moving. I live in a college dorm now. Easy place to spread the word and leave articles laying around.

The MPAA is just as evil as the RIAA, they just show it differently. The RIAA is noisey, preaching to the world how the evil pirates will destroy the economy, makeing headlines with its sue 'em all campaign and its war on p2p providers. The MPAA works quietly, usually in lobbying. It keeps publicity to a minimum, knowing that what people dont know they cant compaign against.

This is my first post to the forum, though I've followed it for a long time as a lurker, and I've done my part with letter writing to congress and such. I just want to say how much I've enjoyed the intelligent conversation here and how much I support the efforts of everyone who participates.

I have to say though I tend to agree with TheSherminator on this one, I do tend to sympathize with the MPAA a little more than the RIAA.

I don't sympathize much with the whole theater system - 9 dollars is an absurd price to pay for a show, whose viewing experience may or may not be hindered by people making noise, tall people sitting in front of you, or people getting up to go to the bathroom. Not to mention that most movies just plain suck and don't come anywhere near offering 9 dollars worth of entertainment value.

But the area that I see as the main difference is the quality of the product on the store shelves.

When it comes to music, the only difference to the consumer between buying an album and downloading it is a (slight) difference in audio quality, and an absence of cover art.

When it comes to movies however, there's a huge difference between what you can download and what you can buy. The picture and audio quality on a DVD is light years beyond what's offered in even the best quality rips. And with downloads, you don't get the innumerable special features that's loaded on DVDs (which can sometimes be as much as 10 or 12 hours worth of entertainment all told). Not to mention that a brand new DVD rarely costs more than $20 (usually its around 1, and most recent movies can be found for 15 dollars or less. Compare this to the price of CDs, and you're just left going "huh"?

I believe that this is the primary reason for the lack of CD sales. DVD sales have skyrocketed while CDs have slumped, simply because DVDs offer a better value for your buck and most people that were spending their entertainment dollars on CDs are now buying DVDs. And I think that even when Broadband connections abound and movies are as easy to share as mp3s, you still won't see a lag in DVD sales, because they offer something CDs don't - value.

The bottom line that these organizations need to understand is that it comes down to the quality of the product they offer. If they offer crap, they shouldn't expect people to pay for it. If they offer something that has value to the consumer, that can match a consumers expectation of a fair price for that value, then the consumer will pay for it. If the RIAA wants to sell more CDs, they should include Artist bios, commentaries, videos, special features, etc. that you can't get with mp3s. But adapting to consumer demands isn't something that it seems like it wants to do.

The MPAA offers a better product. I disagree with their position on copyright laws, but they haven't yet resorted to suing moviegoers (a move which would probably prove far more lethal for the MPAA than the RIAA). And while I don't think that they're any more an ethical organization than the RIAA is, for the reasons cited above, I'd be more likely to sympathize with them.

Official WELCOME onboard to you ReverendLovejoy. Jack Valenti of the MPAA has been a person, as has been previously pointed out, that has preferred to work behind the scenes in a low profile way with politicians. He was dead set against the VCR being allowed if I remember correctly. I think the difference between Jack Valenti and an idiot like Cary-Sue is that, to put it bluntly, Jack Valenti is the old grey fox, and Cary Sue is a whining hyena. Jack has been around a while, and has a lot more political acumen than Cary-Sue. Cary-Sue is a lawyer, and of course his idea to scaree people and put a halt to things is to sue lots of people. It is a legalistic,draconian, shoot from the hip approach that is not smart in the short or long term. Jack has a different personality and a different social framework. Jack is from Texas and Harvard educated. He was a bomber pilot and is from the world of business, advertising and the like. It is said that fellow Texan, Lyndon Johnson, made the biggest impact on his life. Jack KNOWS that suing your customers is a good way to get put out of business. Jack understands the "good old boy" way of getting things done behind the scenes.
Just looking at the pictures of the two men tells you a lot of difference.
Look at this picture of Jack:
http://www.pcworld.com/news/article/0,aid,110698,00.asp

and then look at Cary-Sue
http://www.mccullagh.org/image/d30-25/cary-sherman-riaa.html.
Just their body language shows a lot.
Jack gives ya that big old "hale fellow well met" Texas grin. Cary-Sue has that petulant, big lipped messing with documents look, turned away from you as if the viewer doesn't matter.

Jack wants you to think he gives a damn what you say and that he is on your side, Cary-Sue thinks he is better than you, doesn't need you, and doesn't care what you think.
Even the picture of Cary-Sue at:
http://www.educause.edu/conference/annual/2003/sherman-bio.asp
has him half in shadow, as if there is a lighter side he wants you to think of, but a darker side too.
Ironically, both Cary-Sue and Jack are Harvard grads. But, Cary-Sue is a copyright attorney and has been for some time.
The difference in the two men is reflected in the various tacks which their respective organizations are taking. Jack, coming from a former generation (He's 81) and coming from advertising and politics, knows you have to try to keep the customer happy, or at least don't piss them off too much. Jack though, has tried to get hardware implementations that would make copying difficult.
In a quote from an interview on PC World, Jack said this :
"We felt the best way to get a copyright royalty fee put on blank videocassette tapes was to have the courts declare that VCR machines were copyright infringing. Then you go to the Congress [to impose the levy]. Unhappily, by a five to four decision, the Supreme Court said no."

As a copyright attorney, Cary-Sue is from an adversarial arena, and doesn't think he has to keep the customer happy. He wants to scare everyone.

Now, does that mean that the MPAA is better than the RIAA? Not necessarily.
It means to me that Cary-Sue is a lot more naive politically and with regard to business than Jack is. Which strategy has a better LONG TERM chance? I would tip the scales for the MPAA. I saw the MPAA ad in the theaters featuring a very nice guy who is surrounded by what looks like a setting inside someone's old car garage with old tools and nickknacks talking about the movies he worked on (on one of them he met his wife) and though I KNEW his message was BS, and knew it was an attempt to manipulate me, I kinda enjoyed listening to him and his recollections about movies, and enjoyed seeing this real guy. I have worked on a major movie and met a lot of cool people that make their lives making movies (one of my former neighbors built movie sets for a living), so I could related. I left there not hating the MPAA more. But nothing about the RIAA and Cary-Sue allows me to like them, empathize with them, or feel anything but hatred for them. And that is feeling is going to be epidemic toward them.

So, MPAA SEEMS better than RIAA because of their approach (which is better than the RIAA's), but they all would rob us of our freedoms if they had their way. So I say, "a pox on all their houses".
~code

One other huge difference is in the MPAA relenting, working with the consumer and consumer advocates to allow the VCR to become a reality. The MPAA realized it would never be stopped, so they worked to legitimize it. I for one never complained about paying for a movie I really liked. Because of that willingness to work with the opposition, video rentals became reality. Think of what things would be like if the MPAA had fought the way the RIAA is.

Strikes me as odd, too, since the MPAA has alot more money to lose, that they were the most willing to work with consumers. Or, at least, they didn't attempt to sue everybody who bought a VCR or Betamax.

And, don't you think it's odd that the MPAA doesn't get anything from the sale of videocassettes, but the RIAA does? Maybe the RIAA should look harder into the "rental" arrangement. It's made alot of money for the MPAA, after all, and nobody really balks at renting a video tape or DVD. You don't like it, you're out 5 bucks, at most. If you do like it, you can buy it, usually a few weeks after the initial release, for 10 bucks or so, depending on where you live.

RE Code in reference to Jack v. Cary Sue.. I got four words for either man
Terminate
With
Extreme
Prejudice
just my opinion, and not necessarily the entire opinion LOL
tttmmm

Reading thur the claim it seems like the same ol' blame the tool (filesharing in general) rather then blame the individual for their actions. Yes, Im against filesharing of copyrighted materials, but the fines are outragous, unjust, and dont fit the "crime" and the claims of profit loss are not very believable when older "bargin bin" DVDs are only $5 while new releases are @$25. Filesharing is the boston tea party of the internet freedom fighter.