"Smoking is, if you'll recall, a legal activity."

That was apparently the response from MPAA spokesman Rich Taylor to a letter from the attorneys general of 24 states asking the Motion Picture Association of America to reduce the amount of smoking in films to prevent teens from taking up the habit.

"Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal and the other attorneys cited a June study from Dartmouth Medical School that said children who watch movies in which actors smoke heavily are three times more likely to smoke themselves than those exposed to less smoking on-screen," says ctnow.com here.

"We're not saying any law has been broken," Tom Dresslar, a spokesman for California Attorney General Bill Lockyer, one of the officials who signed the letter, is quoted as saying. "We're just asking out of a concern for the health of our kids that the industry do what it can to ensure that kids don't start smoking."

Octogenerian MPAA boss Honest Jack Valenti had received the letter and would, "respond appropriately", coughed Taylor.

More trying to regulate the way we live
see and hear, will these people ever stop?????

That's an interesting article, and evokes a comment. As most people know, rap music is big "with the kids these days", with about 60 % of rap being purchased by white kids. Now, lots of the rap stars, many of whom are big income producers for the RIAA, have cultivated and projected the PIMP and thug , aka "Gangsta" image, and many have had more than their share of gun possession charges, assault charges, drug charges, even some have been associated with murders. These folks are glorifying a what many would call a "criminal lifestyle" both in their real lives, their onstage comments, and the lyrics of their songs. So, OK, you have "artists" who are glorifying serious criminal activities, but they come out to decry something minor like "copyright infringement"? Geez Louise, do you "stars" know what a wuss that makes you appear?

It would see labels who are members of the RIAA have profitted by capitalizing on this gangsta/thug/pimp image, but let someone alleged copy one of their songs, and they scream bloody murder in court and demand the FBI to investigate this "egregious infringement". Hey Cary-Sue, ever heard of the words "hypocrit" and "duplicitous"?
-One man's opinion...
~code

While I agree with everything normally posted on here. Exactly why is this on here. All this appears to me is someone trying to figure out ways to reduce smoking in America, which is a good thing.

This is dumb, if the kids are stupid enough to take up smoking because they saw someone do it in a movie, then fuck em.

If they're dumb enough to copycat a movie, then they're bound to do something equally dumb(like buy a riaa label copyprotected cd) later in their lifes.

zerodemon, I think it is meant to demonstrate the corruption of the MPAA. They have been told for some time now, that it is not cool to continue to glamourize smoking, because kids see it and think it is cool, get hooking on tobacco, then can't stop, and later, develop COPD, oropharyngeal cancer, throat cancer, lung cancer, pre-cancerous dysplasic cellular changes of cells lining the esophagus (chronic, heavy, smokers usually have cell transformations such as losing the cilia that normally, sweep particulate manner along so it doesn't accumulate in breathing passages, and the changes end up with them having a lot of particulate filled mucus in the morning). But, they continue using smoking in their movies. On the other side, lots of people do smoke, so they would say art imitates life (and the other way around), and that the smoking adds or fills out a "character" or gives "atmosphere". And yes, this has merit. But, do people always go around copying the movies? Some do, that's true, but as to whether most do, that's in question. With all the explosions, robberies, murders, etc. in the movies, I am glad most people don't emulate what they see on the silver screen.

LOL...but then there's the case of the Star Wars Kid video making the rounds!

~code

I have never smoke in my life, but I do have a serious problem with the way they are trying to regulate everything. For the most part I stay away from second hand smoke, if I happen to be at a bar I'll deal with it I dont make a big deal out of it. Resturants should not be forced to be smoke free. They should provide a smoke free section to be considerate. Some resturants can be smoke free to attract to the non-smoker thats fine, if enough non-smokers stop going to a resturant becuase of smoking than the resturant will change its policy, thats the way it should be done, not by government. I can understand public buildings, malls and grocery stores being smoke free.

They tax the hell out of cigerates and alchohol in massachusetts. In New Hampshire the tax is much lower and there is no sales tax at all so one can shop at a mall in New Hampshire and pay no taxes. Becuase of this the New Hampshire economy is way above the national average. I know of two malls that are right on the mass/nh border. I also know of a liquer store thats a rest stop on a highway as soon as you cross the New Hampshire border.

This pisses Massachusetts Goverment officials They treid to force the malls on the border to charge Mass sales tax a few years back but it didnt work, And every once in a while they'll have hidden unmark officers watching for people with mass plates who stop at liquer stores and pull then over and find them as soon as they hit the mass border. I'm not joking Although this is rare.

I did get a little of the subject but I thought you might find that interesting. As far as for movies I've seen plenty of movies and it doesnt make me wanna smoke. Whats next no more murder mysteries becuase it may increase the rate of murder, There getting a little rediculas and they need to stop.

miniguinea- agreed, and great post as usual
~code

I think Massachusetts is the most corupted and the most taxed state in New England, This is a state that trys in so many ways to take away rights. Up until a couple of years ago tatooing and body piercing was illegal, Everyone just went to 1 of the 5 bordering staes to get it done or have a freind do. The law was made to stop the transmission of diseases I think. They repealed the law becuase of people said it violated there right to free expression. dont believe me do a web search. In NH everything is legal, you can buy fireworks, you dont have to were a seatbelt, you dont have to were a motorcycle helmet. They dont try to control your life.
I dont agree with everything NH does for example its legal to drive in NH without car insurance, but it is a great state that doesnt try to violate peoples freedoms and rights. I plan to someday move up there. There are no State or sales tax at, although they have on the highest property taxes in the country but thats really the only tax you have to pay. which is nice.

I put the article up a) because it's a news story, Yes, but mainly because it's another indicator of how corrupt corporate Hollywood (the MPAA is but an element thereof) is. You can bet your gluteous maximus there's a below-the-surface, but nonetheless major, connection between it and the tobacco industry, and probably one firm in particular. You know - red-and-white pack? Likes to use cowboys in its ads?

Smoking isn't a 'habit', it's a hard-core addiction, and one of the worst there is. It took me 32 years and a lot of anguish before I was able to stop. I quit because I didn't, and still don't, want my seven-year-old daughter to think it's cool.

It's been a long time since my last smoke. But there are still times (right now, for instance) when I'd really, REALLY, like to suck poisonous smoke from burning leaves into my helpless lungs. heh.

My dad has smoke ever since I was a kid and I never had the urge to smoke becuase I thought it was gross, and I knew of the dangers, some people know of the dangers but they dont care, you cant force people to care, if there gonna smoke there gonna smoke. If you parent smokes its probably a greater chance you will, but that doesnt mean a child of a non smoker wont get addicted to cigerattes

This brings up the question of whether aritsts or producers bear any moral responsibility for projecting harmful behaviour in movies or music. We all make choices in life. We choose what to put our attention on, for example, whether to view degrading pornography, or hyper-violent images, or to watch something more uplifting and inspiring. We also choose what we want to share with others in our private or work lives. It seems to me, what goes around, comes around. It reminds me of that movie with Steve Martin where he plays a movie producer that specializes in violent action movies and then one day gets shot by a mugger and it changes his whole outlook. In the case of the music industry, their actions are bringing a backlash from both consumers and artists. You reap what you sow.

Well put, IFeelFree

Smoking is a very powerful tool for setting the atmosphere of a scene in a movie (no pun intended). I remember back to when I saw Dark City at Roger Ebert's Unappreciated Film Festival, and before they showed the movie, Roger was commenting how smoking, especially in film noir style movies as this one was, can add so much into a scene to set the mood, describe the characters, etc.

As for the study in this article, I'd bet to question the results, probably nothing more than smokers remember smoking in movies more than non-smokers; I hardly believe it's a major influencing factor.

Hollywood is not buying cigarettes for kids nor providing them, hollywood is not putting the cigarettes in their mouths nor lighting them.

dakota81:

I disagree. Kids are impressionable and very image-conscious. If they see an actor they like playing a character they perceive as cool, and that character is smoking, they often want to identify with the character and are far more likely to try smoking themselves. Once they get started as teenagers, they're often hooked for life. I started smoking when I was 14 because one of the older "cooler" kids at my high school who I looked up to offered me a cigarette. I smoked for 8 years until I finally got wise and quit.

Good for you Ifeelfree lets pat ourselves on the back I quit smoking after 20 years. I know how tough it is to quit. 8 years, 20 years doesn't matter.

And I agree, I feel movie makers should feel responsible for their violent movies, as well as the music makers creating violent lyrics with no regards to upholding laws or treatment of people in general.

What about that assinine show where they do just about anything, and the kids were trying to pull off the same stunts and dying for their trouble? You think kids aren't impressionable? Think again! pepe

As a smoker who wishes I had never started, I have mixed feelings about this.

On one hand, I certainly agree with everyone that we should do what we can to remove the influence and educate our kids that it is not a cool thing to do. It's a filthy disgusting habit and so addictive that it's worse than heroin, in my opinion. It's the only poor decision I've ever made that I simply cannot break myself from (with the possible exception of trying to make a living playing music). And I also agree that the movie industry and the tobacco companies are probably tied together with some kind of product placement agreements.

Part of the blame, however, must lie with the actors and directors. I'm sure that only a fraction of screenwriters actually write in smoking as part of a script. In most cases, it's because the actor smokes and can't put them down long enough to shoot a scene. And a director could exorcise smoking from a film if they wanted to.

The flip side of all of this is that you simply cannot legislate morality. I've seen this touched on in another thread -- prohibition, the war on drugs, etc.

People are going to do what people are going to do. Criminalizing an addictive substance creates criminals, it does not solve the problem.

pepe512000 and IFeelFree: you're both right. (And George, as I said a couple of posts up, I quit - but it took a hell of a lot of effort and believe me, if I can do it, anyone can : )

In the meanwhile, why do so many companies pay sports (and other) stars a fortune to simply put their names on a product? They do it because they know people - not just kids, either - are strongly influenced by their 'heroes'.

I see kids 10 and 11 and even younger walking around with smokes in their mouths. They do it because they see older kids smoking - or someone such as Mel Gibson lighting up and obviously enjoying it. 'Atmosphere' has something to do with it, but not a lot.

When it comes to the bottom line, the Bottom Line is all that counts and I'll never believe it's entirely coincidental when a famous star lights up a particular brand of cigarette with the pack clearly visible, any more than I'll believe that when you see Toshiba or Sony or whatever all over body armour in space movies, or a particular kind of vehicle in close-up in a key scene, that brand names are so clearly visible only 'to make it all look real'.

You can see them because the manufacturer has done a deal with whoever produced the movie.

newjon "You can see them because the manufacturer has done a deal with whoever produced the movie"

And our children (and us) are the VICTIMS! We're "The wallets"

When are we going to stop making hero's out of sports players. OOOHHH he can putt a ball into a hole from 50 feet..lets pay him a cazilllion dollars!

Give me a break! pepe

Why should they take away artistic freedoms given to movie screen-writers just because some stupid kids think that if a guy on screen is smoking then they have to smoke.

Imagine making historical movies without adding the necessary smoking, which WAS of course done frequently during those times. Its just not accurate. Or why not just take all of our old movies and digitally remove all traces of cigarettes and smoking.

Forget about having the Caterpillar in Alice and Wonderland.

**The flip side of all of this is that you simply cannot legislate morality. I've seen this touched on in another thread -- prohibition, the war on drugs, etc.**

Exactamundo, George - this smacks of something out of the Tipper Gore camp, what's next, banning drug use from cop movies ?

I smoke, I knew quite well how harmful and addictive it was when I put the first one in my mouth and lit it, and I WANTED TO DAMMIT - that's what ya call personal freakin responsibility, ok?

I don't wanna quit, and attempts to FORCE me to quit by pissing on my rights as a person sicken me - I don't subject others to it if they don't wish to be, why should I be subjected to hasslement about a vice I happen to enjoy.

The whole anti-smoking free-for-all isn't so much about it being harmful or addictive, as how much MONEY can be milked out of the Gov't and Tobacco companies in the doing... not that I feel sorry for either one of them about it, but to use my tax dollars to come up with excuses to hit me with even more taxes on a product that is loaded with excise tax, and then has sales tax charged on the entire amount, which is mostly excise tax ?

You should thank me, I seem to be singlehandedly subsiding YOUR health care.

Anyhow, a lot of folks got rich off this shell game, and when it started to lose steam, welll.. they jumped right on fast food, didn't they ?

Was I you, I'd be hiding my skateboards and rollerblades...

I know I prolly sound a bit radical about it, but come on, this IS getting ludicrous, and if it comes to the same thing with fast food, let's just see hollywood try to survive putting out the trash they call movies today without those oh-so-expensive "product placement" payments from Coca Cola, Burger King and McDonalds, eh ?

I think the worst case of this I've ever seen was the Playstation game Valkyrie Profile... they left everything else in, but for some reason the fact that one of the characters actually smoked, well, that had to go...

This is asinine, and should be brutally and soundly smacked down for the ridiculous idiocy it is, cause you let too much of this crap slip, we'll be living in that messed up society from Demolition Man.

-user

User and George Z - This isn't about criminalizing anything or 'legislating morality'.

It's about how the multi-billion-dollar international mega industries are in collusion with each other all the way down the line; and, that they'll let nothing stand in the way of their making even more billions.

IFeelFree: The interesting thing about the Steve Martin character was that he quit for a time after getting shot in the leg by a mugger, but after a bit, one of the characters is shocked to find him back making violent films again and confronts him. He says something like,...oh that, I was crazy for a while, violent films are where the money is..so his redemption was short lived and greed kicked in again, wiping away everything he learned

As to the smoking, one of my past girlfriend's mother lived in Arizona. I took my girlfriend to see her mom. I met her for the first time. She was very thin and sick looking, and had a face mask, with an umbilicial like plastic cord hooking her to a giant oxygen tank. While we were visiting, she took the mask off to smoke some. She had emphysema..bad...and I advised her that with the oxygen around, perhaps lighting up was not that great an idea..her reply was like that about her smoking..."oh, it doesn't hurt anything"...she died a couple years ago from emphysema acquired secondary to years of chronic smoking...guess she was wrong. My own grandmother died of emphysema from chronic smoking.

I don't get on my high horse about smoking or drinking ethanol (my grandfather died of cirrhosis of the liver), but lets think about what we do when we smoke. Carbon monoxide, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, benzopyrenes...just a few of the witches brew of chemicals in cigarete smoke. And booze, heck, in the Merck manual, ethanol is listed as a neurotoxin...a nerve cell killing agent...
LOL...but a car will probably kill ya before these things do. We're all terminal from day one...just wish jerks like the RIAA would go away and make what life we have easier!
~code

right on newjon. And yes, people, if you want to smoke, it is your right. But just remember whose pockets you are lining.(I quite smoking cause I felt I might just as well be buring dollar bills as the smokes themselves)

The same goes with buying the records, keeps the riaa rolling along as well. pepe

It is the parents responsiblity to raise your children, Most parents let there young ones watch whatever without being present, This is a problem becuase the parent isnt there to turn it off or explain thats its entertainment and they shouldnt do it.
I mean can someone sew there next door neighbor because he smokes a cigerate outside on his porch and their child saw it and thought it was cool? I dont think so its the parents responsibilty, Just because the parent is too lazy or doesnt have the time to properly raise there children doesnt mean everybody has to lose their freedoms. If you dont have the time or do not want to put the effort in dont have children, if you already have children its you responsibilty to find time.

Crazy part is where I live in VA a carton of smoakes is about as cheap as a RIAA label CD...$19

sorry about wording again I have a tendency to proof read.

its about $4.60 a pack in Mass. NH half of that.

19 dollars a carton, wow. Its like $70 a carton here in NYC.

ahh...not proof read... there I go again

Most of the cost of cigerates is taxes. Its suppose to stop people from smoking but it never seems to work.

I agree with you miniguinea up to a point. While the kids are young, it is the parents sole responsibility to see that their children are kept out of harms way, but after they grow and start getting out into the world, their peers take over influencing them,(or the music they are listening to, or the movies they are watching out there) and it's very difficult for parents to maintain control.

You may be the best parent in the world, and keep your cable locked up and your MTV turned off, etc, but your next door neighbor perhaps doesn't have the same high moral standard and little Johnny, playing with his friends over there ends up seeing stuff that would curl your hair!

We just try to guide them the best way we can. We're parents, not God. pepe

And smokes up here are over $10.00 a pack (thats 25 smokes per pack) That's over 80.00 dollars a carton..... or for the average smoker over $400.00 a month to smoke. Good Grief! I can sure think of better ways to spend money! pepe

I think newjon is on the right track. Yes movies influence kids but so do parents, family, friends, street signs, music, etc etc.

The point here is that the movie industry makes millions of dollars in endorsements through product placement. This is PER MOVIE. Pepsi doles out serious cash so that pepsi cans can be seen in the actors hands. Mike Myers pointed this out in the original Wayne's World movie.

If the movie association presses hollywood to remove cigarettes from movies they will los millions of dollars in the near future, and billions of dollars in the future. Big Tobacco is the only industry to survive a monstrous legal judgement (in the tune of 46 BILLION). By claiming that smoking is legal they are stating two things;
1. Smoking is legal, it's the truth
2. We don't care if it's dangerous to your health, we only care about the money that companies pay us, even if it shortens the lifespan of our consumers.

Right or Wrong has nothing to do with this. Once again it comes down to money, the only thing the MPAA or the RIAA care about.

Back to the Bottom Line (there it is again ; ) the tobacco industry has already arrived where Hollywood is heading fast - that's up excreta creek without a paddle. So anything it can do to find New Addicts and then get them hooked is Good News.

For new addicts, read 'young generations' so, making sure as many Star Smokers as possible light up on the silver screen is a very big step in the right direction for the tobacco giants.

And, 'No prob at all,' says Honest Jack Valenti, stubbing out his fat cigar.

Very true pepe, and I do understand it has a lot to do with the area you live in and your surroundings. If your in a Area were most parent dont care it can be very difficult. This is because it has gotten out of hand. its a domino effect of bad parents that makes your job harder. The entertainment industry is more a reflection of society, then a reflection on society.

Need to read this:

Music Industry Unveils Tracking Methods

http://www.duluthsuperior.com/mld/duluthsuperior/news/6632383.htm

Kids are smoking not because of the movies,its that COOL KID at school who defy authority and others will follow.. I know I was one of them . so removing it from movies seems a bit lame... As far as the bars go,if you don't smoke don't ask me to quit... A BAR IS A BAR...

I delete all my id3 tags with id3kill becuase I find them annoying, most of my mp3s come from my own cds, or others I borrowed I find downloaded copies tend to suck. Anyways I should probably look to see if theres a way to destroy metadata tags just in case. Even though I dont have any P2P program on my current computer

it looks like I'm all set
http://www.searchtools.com/info/mp3-search.html

gilbd:

Interesting article. It raises some questions such as how do they know whether she downloaded the files, or she was the source of the uploads to other people. Also, since she owns the CDs, what does it matter whether she downloaded the songs from KaZaa or ripped them her self? She's allowed to have copies for personal use under Fair Use rights, as I understand it. The only way it would be a problem for her is if she claims she never downloaded or shared, as that (apparently) could be proven to be a lie. As long as she admits to only downloading files for which she already owns the CDs for, it wouldn't be copyright infringement. Alternatively, she could say that she ripped them herself and inadvertantly shared them while logged onto KaZaa because she didn't understand how the program worked. She might still have a plausible defense.

Also, regarding the tracking methods article...I always use MP3Trim to remove any extra silence at the begining and end of any MP3 files. That should also alter the hash function for that file and hopefully confound any file matching. The id3kill program sounds like a good idea too. Does it cause problems for P2P search engines if the ID3 tag is missing? I'm assuming they just use the file name for searches.

IMHO ... the only responsibility on things like this lay on parents to eductate their children on these issues .... I have two children of my own and I educate them both on every issue I feel is important and that they need to know about ... I will not leave it up to anyone else .. I took that responsibility when I decided to have them !

IFeelFree this on another one it tells more

RIAA turns up heat on subpoena fighter
http://news.com.com/2100-1027_3-5069019.html

IFeelFree

What I would like to know is how long have they been spying on people. Looks like they were doing it on Napster.

gilbd:

Regarding the subpoena to obtain the woman's identity, the article says the woman's lawyer "would likely have a legal response ready as soon as Thursday". It will be interesting to see what their legal argument for privacy is. I'm guessing they'll appeal to constitutional protections against invasion of privacy.

gilbd:

Yeah, it looks like they've been acquiring an extensive database of tracks for years.

I too find this post rather odd here...

Perhaps avoid having the main character, or "hero" smoking unecessrily, that is, unless if it adds to the "charater" or movie. ( movie about a chronic smoker would be odd if he or she didn't smoke )

As far as smoking and the tabacco indutry goes... I see nothing positive in smoking, you pay to damage your health, and sometimes that of others.
I have nothing positive to say about anything or anyone who is benefitinig from and encourages someone elses missery.

I just found out they have been spying on people from May 2000. Is their any laws on them spying on people. I think this is wrong.

I'll have to check out mp3trim. I actually rename any mp3 not in the format of artist - songtitle.mp3. it takes a little effort. butI do keep songs orgranized in a directory of artist then a sub directory of album and you can set your search set up in winamp 2 where it reads the files in your search. I use the jump key and can get to any song I want to listen to in a second. Thats why I prefer listening on my PC. Wincue is another great plugin that allows you search for songs and create a playlist of the songs you want to hear without having to manually go through your directory. I'm not a big fan on plugins but I think this one is excellent. being a Computer Science major I'm picky about the programs I put on my computer. I like simple programs that get the job done not complicated ones that tie down resourses and crash.

RIAA discloses its methods.

Hey Code! you were right about hashes. See address:
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&ncid=1212&e=2&u=/ap/20030827/ap_en_mu/downloading_music&sid=95573501

Interesting comment from a user in yahoo.

Put a crimp in the RIAA's garden hose
by: rbalch00 08/27/03 06:43 pm
Msg: 11460 of 11460

Here's an idea I have: If anyone knows of a program which does this, please let me know

(In short, it's kinda like filing the serial number off your stolen goods, but you get a new serial number and can claim you made the thing)

Facts
1. The RIAA uses a library of hashes (and some ID3 tags) of mp3s to help 'prove' that the files originated from file-sharing services (Napster, etc.)

2. Hashes (at least the ones I know of are changed completely after ANY change in the file contents.

It appears that there would be more difficulty in the RIAA making their cases if the defendants could raise more doubt as to the origins of their files (such as if they were made from their own CD collection)

If a simple program were made to run through a person's mp3 collection and make small changes in the ID3 tags (or even the sound signal over a very short period), this library of hashes would be useless against them.

I understand a disadvantage would be that dl's of the same file from multiple hosts at the same time would become more difficult but, honestly, how often does that actually speed up your download? And there are so many versions of each file anyways.

Now if even a small percentage of people ran this program on their shared collections it would complicate the RIAA's efforts.

Having some 4000 files myself (though all from my personal CD collection), I could run this once and immediately obselete their entire 'library'. How many people actually remember (or even know) the origins of some of their oldest files?

Good luck to all!
Rob

A combination of MP3Trim and ID3kill would probably accomplish the same thing.

or dbpoweramp,just re encode the file and it will change the hash.
change the encodeing,like jac it upto 128k or 384k or something insain...lets really fuck up there database

http://www.dbpoweramp.com/dmc.htm

Useful references:

Audio CD format-
http://www.disctronics.co.uk/cdref/cdbasics/cdbasics.htm

MP3 files and ID3 tagging-
http://webhome.idirect.com/~nuzhathl/mp3-faq.html#ques29

Hash codes-
http://www.thawte.com/support/crypto/hash.html

The (in)feasibility of copy protection and water-marking-
http://www.counterpane.com/crypto-gram-0011.html#6
http://www.counterpane.com/crypto-gram-9811.html#copy
http://www.counterpane.com/crypto-gram-0102.html#1

eTantrum's MusicID -
http://www.etantrum.com/index.php?section=technology

i smoke sampoerna's so if i try to buy them localey then its like 4.09 a pack

if anyone smokes here buy your cigs on line

i save like 8.00 or more on a carton

http://cigs4free.com

another kool link
this is an ip database that will tell you who i where,kinda like a phone book

http://www.voodoomaniax.com/ipindex/index.htm

Stardeamon - explain to me exactly, HOW my smoking hurts YOU - or shut your face.
And don't shovel the cost issue, since I pay outrageous amounts of excise tax money for medical care I am unlikely to ever live to use, for reasons that have NOTHING to do with smoking - that benefits you, not me.

I smoke, I know it's addictive, and assume complete responsibility.
I happen to ENJOY this particular little vice, so why is it any skin off YOUR back that I do?
You don't know me, will never meet me, and live nowhere near me.

The same "see nothing positive in" argument could be used against fast food, roller blading and any other number of supposedly-potentially-injuring things, or even not so supposed, like Alcohol, which is in fact a poison, but it is one people enjoy, and have the RIGHT to enjoy... at least, for now.

Everything "fun" is dangerous or immoral in SOME way, and given half an excuse and the ability to make money out of trying to deny it to other people, folks will try to ban it - that's just the way it works, people get a damned power trip out of forcing others into their OWN moral pidgeonhole.

And people like you help them do it... the only thing I am contributing to YOUR misery, is not taking your moral high ground BS.

Just like the RIAA, the anti-smoking folks are very fond of making statements with no statistical or empirical data of any value behind them - just because smoking IS addictive and harmful, does not mean those scamming their way into loads of wealth trying to get it banned do not lie.

The tobacco companies lied, the anti-smoking lobbies lied, hell, everyone lied, especially the folks who sue while denying any responsibility for their own lives..

That's what this is ABOUT, the right to enjoy one's self in ways that other people disapprove of, and if you don't support that, even if you may disagree with some of the things they do - might as well just check yourself into a rubber lined room with a stock of prozac and crayons, so you'll be unable to do anything harmful to yourself, cause you know, having fun shortens your lifespan, heh.

-user

seraphielx , Thanks for the smokes link.
George , I've always told everyone that quitting smoking is very easy. I've done it six or seven times now !
WABBITMAN

I'm a smoker...so there!

It's just the MPAA's attitude that I get from the quote...God, what ever happened to diplomacy!

I don't think smoking needs to be in films which are intended to be shown to teens and under, and unless it's really necessary, in those films shown to adults. I mean, what's the point?

Children are impressionable...that's why I'm chagrined at the movies that kids are allowed to see by their parents. I don't want to watch a lot of the crap Hollywood has been putting out for the last 20 years or so.

Same goes for drug use and alcohol...both of which (especially the drugs) have been glamorized in slick films, even though you can argue that they are actually saying "naughty naughty", the drugs are glamorized nonetheless...naughtiness is attractive to kids.

As for restaurants and bars, I agree with MiniGuinea...it should be the restaurant owner's call as to whether they want it or not. Personally, I don't blame non-smokers for not wanting to be exposed to it, but if you're downing a pint or two, or downing those Outback cheese fries, then I guess you shouldn't bitch about your health!

gilbd, wow what great posts!
Hmmm...looks like things are heating up. Scanned the articles about the nycfashiongirl or whatever name...and there are so many things to talk about with this, don't know where to start.
Number one, as I understand, she claims she bought the computer with songs on it... "Nycfashiongirl's attorney told the court that his client had purchased a computer with music on it, had legally ripped her own CDs to her hard drive, and had used the Kazaa application to listen to that music. She had tried several times to prevent sharing that music with the outside world, her attorneys wrote. "
Now,it's not clear whether she is talking about those sample songs you get in a new computer, or that she bought a used computer which had tunes on it, and legally ripped her own CDs.
900 songs would be about 90 cds worth,give or take. That's a lot of ripping. If it was a used box (probably not), this raises a legal issue of making certain you really wipe a drive if you ever sell your old box. Now, at first blush, when I saw something about her saying she tried several times to block sharing, I thought, yeah, RIGHT! But, seems like I remember a virus or worm that was making the rounds a while back, that was downloadable from KaZaa . It was the W32/Kingdom-A virus. It made registry changes to enable file sharing. "Upon execution, the worm drops itself to C:\Windows\Sys32 as kingdom-hearts.exe and modifies the following registry entries

HKCU\Software\KaZaa\LocalContent\DisableSharing

HKCU\Software\KaZaa\LocalContent\Energy
The above changes enable P2P file sharing under KaZaA and make C:\Windows\Sys32 a shareable folder
.
Thus, it is possible that that happened. The notion she was using Kazaa just to play her tunes, ok, MAYBE, but there are a lot of better MP3 players than Kazaa's.

OK, now to the meat of the matter. To be honest, I didn't dream that the RIAA was going to the level of technical analysis that they did. I thought they were just going to have the IP, the time downloaded, and copy of the copyrighted file, and the username. This deal about going through her shared folder and "but had examined the full contents of Nycfashiongirl's shared folder, looking in detail at the "metadata" attached to each file such as song name, artist, notes attached by earlier file swappers, and even at the contents of the file itself.

Some of the files exactly matched the "fingerprints," or specific digital characteristics, of songs earlier identified on the now-defunct Napster service, the RIAA said. All those factors indicated that the anonymous computer user was a "frequent and significant participant in illegal downloading and distribution of music," the group wrote.", in my humble opinion is bad news.

All this tracing files, looking at the metadata, etc., is going somewhere, and it is NOT just about this one lady.
They seem to be making a questionable lot of emphasis on this Napster connection, and apparently, looking for other usernames in the files, and trying to trace the history of the files, and apparently, who originally recorded the MP3s.

"The RIAA, the trade group for the largest record labels, said it also found other hidden evidence inside the woman's music files suggesting the songs were recorded by other people and distributed across the Internet".

And, judging by all the talk about the digital DNA, it seems BayTSP was the toadie that did the grundge work. I just think there is something Machiavellian behind all this tracing and linking crap. Not good!

If I'm being too suspicious, it's ok to say so...but my gut instincts are usually right on with this kinda stuff.
~code

The only thing proven to cause cancer is artifical sweeteners (100%in lab rats). (Cant find the link, but thats why theres a warning on Diet Coke) Im sorry for those who died an early death from conditions that are linked to cigarettes, but so far in my family the men either die very young in combat or close to 100 yrs old from these smoking related diseases.
With any "warnings" one needs to look deeper, such as the warning that filesharing is illegal, or that caffine causes disorination.
Your kids could pick up smoking anywhere. I choose to contunue smoking because it makes me less violent, among other things.
Im tired of the differant "thems" telling me how to live and dont need any industry joining the voice of morality. If it was up to me I'd illegalize live Xmas trees, I see it as morally wrong to kill a piece of nature to decorate it and then throw it away. (yeah Im weird, must be that wacko tobacco I smoke lol)
Anyways smoking, Xmas trees, drinking diet pop, ect, all sound like personal choices, good luck onsticking with the choice you make.
If it takes a village to raise a child, can the villagers stop burning the witches.

Ive ripped my entire CD collection to my hard drive, 1500+ songs. My PC, also used for recording, is plugged into a stage PA. Winamp is better then a 300 disc changer, this is the best stereo Ive ever had! I keep my CDs hidden away like a referance library. I think I have like 5 or 6 mp3s from the net.... I dont share 'em tho', yeah Im against filesharing copyrighted materials but a $150,000 fine is cruel and unually high punishment. I also get concerned about the RIAA copyright nazis knocking on my door even tho' my mp3s are (almost) all legal

I'm starting to understand now. Really good points made here.

CodeWarrior I have a question

Now if they have been doing this from May 2000 and we didn't know they are doing this is this not spying. Now we all know they were not there to download songs. And the only reason they were there was to spy on all of us. Am I right.

Hmm, a quick background check on nycfashiongirl reveals... bum-bum-ba-ba-da-daaaa: a 21 year old female college student from NYC. *Sighs* another college peer bytes the dust...

..I don't know about this smoking thing, but yaknow..the way that your body craves nicotine? My body craves carbohydrates the same way..

People smoke, a good screenwriter or director will realize this, thus, some characters in some films will smoke.

Cars kill more people globally than cigarettes. Should filmmakers stop having their characters drive cars because of this?

A good filmmaker will represent a broad swath of society, a poor filmmaker will try to only represent those without vice.

Characters who are smokers in movies do not promote smoking, they are simply characters who smoke. A filmmaker who does not show smokers as a part of society, for good or ill, is a hack.

Smoking sucks, yes (I am a smoker and am having a bear of a time trying to quit). The tobacco companies are making money while thousands die a day, yes. But people smoke, and good film should represent society, in all it's different shades. Smokers are no better or worse than anyone else, and kudos to any filmmaker who does not shy away from reality. If a character is written as a smoker, so shall it be onscreen.

Michael Douglas, "... put out your cigarette, in California there's no smoking indoors..."

Sean Penn (exhaling), "Fuck California."
-David Fincher's "The Game"

The only reason tobacco isn't classed as an illegal drug is because by the time people realised how harmful it was too many people were smoking to consider a ban.

parlruss is right through. People smoke in reality, they should smoke in movies. Unlike the "gangsta" rapper image, I havn't seen any movies actively glorifying smokers.

I notice that althrough the gangsta rappers do complain about copyright infringement, they always phrase it according to their image. Eg, eminem:

"Whoever put my s**t on the internet, I want to meet that motherf**ker and beat the s**t out of him. Anybody who tries to make excuses for that s**t is a f**king bitch!"

Man, that Eminem is f**king eloquent!

what about those stupid adds with all the waitresses, talking about laws banning smoking in public places like bars and restaraunts? As a smoker, I was apalled. In the words of Mr Pink.."I got two words for you, learn to fucking type"(Reservoir dogs)
I smoke. I admit it. I (as well as MANY people I know) realise it's not healthy, and I still do it. It's MY CHOICE DAMMIT! If a waitress doesn't wanna be around smoke, then.. well.. re the above comment. I'm sick and tired of being told where I can and can't smoke, by people who just wannna bitch and be stupid. I've seen people change the route they were walking, to walk THRU a cloud of smoke, just to put a hand to their face and give a little "wuss cough".. gawd how I'd love to kick their teeth in. Some of the worst are the ones where I work that when I mention that I smoke, decide it's the their moral imperative to give me a lecture on the evils of smoking. FUCK THAT. It's still legal. I smoke. live with it
As for kids imitating the people who smoke in movies, follow that logic. Now we're gonna have 3 million kids running for California office cuz Arnold did? Gimme a break! If this were the case, we'd have MORE lawyers, cops, senators, karate masters, idiots sticking their tongues to posts in the winter, putting heads in duffel bags and oh yeah, dating women with big asses then making shitty movies.
Sheeesh! oops.. got of on a rant there.. lots of emotion in this topic for me.. JMHO.
ttmmm

user65535:

I belive you misinterpreted my post.

Just because "I see nothing positive in smoking", doesn't mean I don't realise others might.

If you enjoy smoking and want to do it, fine, I don't have any issues with it. Provided that it isn't close to me in a badly ventliated room, that isn't a bar or a designated smoking area, etc.

As for my problem with the tobacco industry. Most smokers I know that have mentioned anything about it don't want to smoke, and want to quit, but can't.
Most of them where also very young at the time they started and didn't realise the consequences.
As far as I've been able to discern, the tobacco industry doesn't seem to care about this. They seem more concerned about the money.

It seems to me that in _general_ people are suffering more from smoking than they enjoy it. Otherwise, I don't see why they'd want to quit. This is why I dissaprove of tobacco in _general_, and also another reason I have issues with the tobacco industry.

In _specific_, though, I need not have problem with it. If you enjoy it, want to smoke and are aware of the consequences, then I have no problem with it, aside from the specific cases stated in the beginning of my post.

I realise I didn't answer many, if any specific questions in your post. Instead I tried to adress what seemed to be your main problem with my post, and explain my opinions in a bit more detail and some of the motivations behind my them.

If you think this is insufficient, or if you still have issues, please let me know. I don't mind you having issues with my opinions, as long as they are my opininions, and not a flaw in communication.

gilbd- yes,check out my extended post in the Webcaster Alliance thread
and, sorry for answering late.
~code

It is true the tobacco industry is concerned far more about money than the health of its customers, but thats true of all industry . More concerning is the way people are pressured into smokeing as teenagers by peer pressure, or surprisingly often as adults wanting an excuse to take breaks from work, and then get addicted. There is something very wrong with getting your customers addicted, even if it does make good busines sense.

Ah, thanks for the clarification, Star.

Well, if someone didn't do their homework, or was too dumb to realize setting a mutilated plant on fire and inhaling the smoke might just be harmful... and then wants to quit ?

I got no problem with that, other than not having very much sympathy for them, but my issue is more with the idea that's been pushed that *every* smoker deep down WANTS to quit or that they should be forced to.

I also have problems with the fact that the anti tobacco folks lie when they have NO need to do so - the facts are plenty enough, so why make outrageous claims based on little to no empirical or scientific data ?

The end result of doing such a thing, is that it muddies the issue considerably when EVERYONE seems to be lying - if they'd stuck to the truth they would have credibility, which they don't, especially when it comes clear that some people, particularly lawyers, have become millionares over this.

And that's the biggest part of my issue - it's not with folks who geniunely want to do something decent, or are concerned for the health of others - it's with the folks who USE those people as a front to make money and get an ego trip out of forcing others to do what THEY want.

And my greatest concern is, as always, the tyranny of "for your own good", so if I seem to be a bit more agitated about this than seems reasonable, consider how you'd feel if a coalition of folks who mean well, folks using them, and the Gov pulled something like this on a thing you enjoy ?

Say skateboarding, for example, dangerous, health risk, SUPPOSEDLY leads to or increases crime in an area (yes, many city councils have made that exact claim).. so it winds up banned just about everywhere, your average skateboard costs $600-$800, and once the pads and helmets become mandatory, the folks selling them snicker up their sleeve at a captive market and triple the price - and then finding a place to skate, and when you do, it's surrounded by folks giving you crap about it.... oh but you still have the RIGHT to skate, uh-huh, excercising it becomes another problem...

Take that theoretical and apply it to something you happen to like, and then consider why I would react so strongly about my rights to do things others don't approve of "for my own good" - it is utterly the worst of tyrannies, and the reason I come down so hard about it is that if people don't draw a line, where does it stop ?

Nothing personal against ya Star, but I wanted to point out where that kind of thing leads to, cause if you don't stand up for rights you may not agree with, sooner or later someone will decide to step on YOUR rights "for your own good"...

It's an awful, awful slippery slope, believe it.

-user

I am 15, and have to say that nobody I know would be stupid enough to smoke just because they saw it in a movie.

user65535:

Sure np, I understand. I agree, I'm not in favor of cricumscribing sombodys personal rights/freedoms either, as long as it doesn't significantly cause harm to anyone else.

I'm glad that's cleared up then

A somewhat recent law in Florida (approved by voters) does make it illegal to smoke indoors. There are some exceptions, but during a movie is not one of them.

When is a Sleazebag not a sleaze bag?

Is it when they pat babies on the head? Is it when they love puppies and kittens?

Is it when they don’t succumb to the unwritten imperative of orchestrated “peer pressure”?

The movie industry is made up of human beings (gee, just like life.) Within the movie industry exist people who; smoke, who haven’t succumbed to the anti-smoking “bandwagon” and who haven’t yet been infected with a desire to re-write other people’s lives. No doubt most of them realize that it’s better to maintain a low profile because they are becoming the pariahs of our current age.

It was in an age of historical intolerance that the holocaust occurred.

Which holocaust?

Any HOLOCAUST !

This willingness to “only pick on the people who REALLY deserve it” is exactly the slippery slope that leads to ANY holocaust.

The willingness to “only pick on them within the legal limits of legislation” has no validity. Skateboarding control and regulation laws, DMCA, “social engineering” by taxation and regulation, ALL are just different ways to get people ready to accept intolerance.

People who see this dynamic as a viable career choice are the product of an education that has bleached the meaning out of the lessons of history.

But, if you look at the imposition of “control” and recognize: you are being asked to live your life to someone else’s standards.

And you will be forever dependent on someone else for permission and direction on just how you may live your life.

Then suddenly you realize: All these people who are making a career out of controlling how you live your life, have taken away your free will. And you are damned on Earth, before you even get a chance to be “damned” in Hell.

There are some few things that a society to protect itself must do. That number of things is far less than the number of things that our society currently tells us we must do.

The belief that “I’M all right: but YOU need to be regulated” is enabled by the sowing of fear.

But it is also based on fear: Do you want to have your life ruled by hysterical Fearmongers?

Personally, I don’t.

My father passed away this year at the age of 58 from smoking (well, the heart attack cause from his smoking). You don't see me going on TV and blaming other people for my dad's lack of judgement.

Until kids are legal adults, anything they do should be blamed on themselves AND the parents. Nothing more, nothing less. Once they're considered adults by their country, they're on their own.

My feelings? Blaming superficial media for how people behave is an insult to human potential.

well said Neo

I support the state AGs in urging hollywood to remove smoking from movies. My uncle died of lung cancer, and I feel that we need to send the right message to teens and young adults. See smokefreemovies.ucsf.edu for more info on this issue.

Hey guys. I have a question. I'm not sure if this is the right place for my question to be answered. I was wondering is there a Registry Key that can enable file sharing? (Not on KaZaA) File sharing from Control Panel > Network Connections > Properties. If so please please tell me it!!

Thanks, help is greatly appreciated!