The MPAA blaming file sharers for the studios' online problems is a lot like the RIAA using kiddie porn to smear file sharing when its members' lyrics comprise some of the most offensive porn to be found anywhere.

That's one of the thoughts one can draw from a new AT&T Labs report which hangs much of the blame for online movie trading on 'insiders' instead of p2p movie fans.

When the $150 million Jolly Green Giant went online two weeks before its official release date in June, it wasn't a bunch of frenzied file-sharers who were responsible. Nor were crews of p2p freaks with mini-cams stuffed under their raincoats the people who uploaded The Hulk onto the networks.

It happened through insider connections.

Lorrie Cranor is principal technical staff member at AT&T Lab's Secure Systems Research program and together with four other people, she studied how unauthorized copies of movies are being distributed online.

"Part of the reason we were looking was because we suspected there would be some insider leaks," she told us, "but not so many."

Of a total of 285 movies she and her team sampled, 77% were leaked by industry insiders.

Moreover, only 5% first appeared after their DVD release date on a web site that indexes file sharing networks, indicating that consumer DVD copying currently represents a relatively minor factor compared with insider leaks, says Cranor in Analysis of Security Vulnerabilities in the Movie Production and Distribution Process, the paper which flowed from the research.

Working with Cranor were AT&T's Simon Byers, Dave Kormann, Patrick McDaniel and Eric Cronin from the University of Pennsylvania.

In the meanwhile, but not at all incidentally, a movie screener is usually a DVD sent to movie critics and censors before the public sees it, and to other insiders for other purposes. MPAA boss Jack Valenti would, for example, be able to send (or have sent) a screener to someone he wanted to see a movie before it's official release. Naturally, distribution is carefully controlled - or so Hollywood would have us believe.

In fact, they're all over the place and indeed, anyone who's done their own online research will have noticed a significant number of movie downloads are clearly-marked 'screener' and they frequently have "Property of *****" appearing intermitently at the bottom of the screen as the movie unfolds.

But screeners aren't the only problem. Promo copies of movies are available weeks before they're in the cinemas. Same thing for the videos and DVDs which appear in rental stores once the movies have made their millions through the box-offices. And of course, studio employees see movies as they go through the editing and final production processes.

In short, there are literally hundreds of ways a copy can get onto the street and online, file sharers being way down the list of possiblities.

In conclusions, the paper has this to say:

"[...] the movie industry ought to treat everybody within its influence equally, from studio executives and investors, down through movie editors, truck drivers and out to the critics. Such elementary procedures as audit trails of custody would seem to be in order. While we expect that this is already done to some extent, it must be applied evenly and without preference. Our study shows a large amount of insider leakage. Hence, we argue that current mitigation techniques are insufficient. Given the revenue losses claimed by the industry, spending more money and effort on internal controls is appropriate.

"Movie artifacts are handled by a limited number of employees in a controlled manner during production and through much of the distribution process. In the later stages of distribution, content is handled by a large and mostly anonymous community. Securing the former environment is difficult but tractable. Securing the latter is nearly impossible. Hence, focusing efforts on insider threats addresses the most costly leakage, and represents the best opportunity for success."

Are you paying attention, Jack?

Go here for a copy. It'll hold you spell-bound.

But back to The Hulk, how did Kerry Gonzalez, the guy ultimately nailed for "posting the purloined film on the Internet" come unglued?

He, reportedly obtained a video of a pre-release 'work print' from a friend, who in turn got it from an employee of a Manhattan print advertising firm that was promoting the movie, says the paper, also stating:

"Although Gonzalez used software to black out the security tags before posting the film to the Internet, studio officials were reportedly able to identify the source of the leak from the remnants of these tags. The FBI was also able to track the uploaded copy to Gonzalez through his Internet Service Provider."

Jon Newton

The indurstries KNOW they cant control this problem so they take it out on EVERYONE like a pre-pubescent temper tantrum.


Little bitches.

exactly. They know it's their fault, but it's so convenient to blame someone else. No accountability whatsoever.

The MPAA has more to lose from piracy than the RIAA and I am more supportive of them, until they start using the DMCA, then they get the same treatment. And I'm sure they will.

Look at the differences between the two

Cost of production
MPAA Movie: Millions upon Millions
RIAA CD: a dollar

Cost of product
MPAA Movie: $5 - $8
RIAA CD: $15 - $20

Overall Experience
Good MPAA Movie: Awesome
Good RIAA CD: What?

I define a good movie as a thoroughly great experience. Just as I define a good CD as a thoroughly good experience (i.e. - 15 or more great songs). Such fantastic CD's are only created within CD-Burners.

Don't get me wrong, I trust the MPAA about as much as I'd trust satan, which is only slightly more than I trust the RIAA. But the fact remains that the MPAA *does* stand to lose profit, and that movies *do* cost a lot to make, and that the MPAA is a much more necessary entity than that of the RIAA. When they start handing out DMCA subpoenas, I'll toss that defense out the window. . . And I'm sure they will

I went and saw "whale rider" over the weekend, loved the movie, but did NOT LIKE the set designer or whoever he was that said piracy affects his job. He should be looking on the inside of his company instead of blaming others. Plus the MPAA has no legal service right now that i know of where i can download and watch movies! WHEN WILL THIS HAPPEN?????????

Oh yeah, one more thing

Refund policy

MPAA Ticket booth: I hated this movie, I want my money back.
Result: Your wish is granted (yes, it's 100% true).

RIAA vendor: I hated this cd/It's scratched/It's censored
Result: You're screwed out of over 2x the money.

hmm, so I dont need a fast connection... just friends on the inside, cheaper, I like it!

We don't advocate piracy here.

im working on my own goddamn figures, I want to know exactly how much the industry is REALLY losing from online piracy, this does not include piracy on a hard format, from some scumbag peddling cheap DVD's in Piccadily Circus, so he can buy sausages for his russian family. I may be surprised to find out that what we are doing IS actually harming artists, I doubt it but am prepared to find out for myself, il post my findings next week [have to make a few calls] anyone who can help please email me at. cynosural[DONT_SPAM_ME_YOU_FUCK]@hotmail.com the fact is if we ARE actually doing as much damage as THEY say we are then maybe we are aproaching this all wrong, lets get some solid figures first.

"We don't advocate piracy here"

what do you mean? isnt that the label we have been given *Pirates* isnt that what we are? Im not arguing wether or not its right or wrong, but if you download something you have not paid for is that not piracy?

NOPE-here's the LEGAL definition of citizens as pirates in the US
CITE
18 USC Sec.1652 01/26/98
TITLE 18 - CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
PART I - CRIMES
CHAPTER 81 - PIRACY AND PRIVATEERING
Sec. 1652. Citizens as pirates
Whoever, being a citizen of the United States, commits any murder
or robbery, or any act of hostility against the United States, or
against any citizen thereof, on the high seas, under color of any
commission from any foreign prince, or state, or on pretense of
authority from any person, is a pirate, and shall be imprisoned for
life."
Now THAT'S PIRACY
~code

The Sherminator

It takes more than a dollar to produce a CD... i will agreee it takes a dollar to manufacter a CD but not produce some albums based on the artist and how long can take millions of dollars...

See the movie industry knows that if they leak a new release out it will end up on the internet and they will have a great promotional tool without having to pay for it. They just want to pretend they don't know how it works and then cry for sympathy. The reality is that these online copies pretty much suck in quality and about the only thing they are good for is helping a person to decide whether they want to spend the 10 bucks to go see a movie or not. If that much of the leakage is coming from within then you can't tell me it isn't being done on purpose.

as far as online movies go i don't remember how many times i D/L a movie a day or two after it released and loved it so much i felt like watching it on the big screen in full 5.1 or what ever thay use now so basicly the mpaa really gains more from these D/L less of chorse thay put out a bad movie witch happins alote then the public knows it's a bad movie becose thay got to sample it and thay brings me to my point thay don't like the cam and dvd screeners vershons of movies why? not becose thay are lossing profit from good movies no thay are lossing profit from the movies that the mpaa puts out that should have went strait to dvd well i can think of one of them off hand queen of the damned i'm so glad i D/L that piece of trash befor i went to see it but in the same sence i D/L the dvd screener to 28 days later a week befor it came out and loved it so much i went and seen it agin a movie i would have neaver thought twice about so in the end the mpaa will just have to stop putting out trash and make good movies so when we D/L them we will want to go see them thats all i have to say for now


i'm a pi$$ed off pit-bull with a taste of riaa blood i'll neaver go back to eating my kibbles and bits

ARRRRRGH Jimlad! Shimmer me timbers. We'll catchus some bounty on the open sea (Read internet). ARRRRGH! We'll make those land lubbers (Read RIAA etc) walk the plank. ARRRRGH!

ok, I see potentialy heated debate on the horizon here, ALL im saying here is lets cut the crap and be honest with ourselves, everyone has become so caught up in "The Good Fight" with the common enemy (RIAA/BIG5) that my only concern is that we are becoming blind and biased to our own actions, I do not agree with what is happening here with RIAA and Microsofts restrictive file formats, BUT.... I can understand where they are coming from, they are not known for compromise or sharing of wealth and knowelege, so with this in mind it would seem obvious that our actions online/offline, would wake the hungry swine and antagonise them into some kind of preventative action, MY question ~Code, is how would would you classify us and our actions, I personally do what the hell I want with my computer since I shelled out £2,600 of my hard earned cash on my mac, if I feel like downloading a single an mp3 then I will. For this I'm am labelled a Pirate and criminal, [Sticks and Stones] but I can look back and say that "yes I now have a copy of that song I wanted, and no, I didn't pay for it" what that makes me I dont know, but of course I DO NOT DOWNLOAD MUSIC OR UPLOAD IT FOR THE RECORD
"We don't advocate piracy here"

Your respectfully LNF

PS: this is not intended to antagonise, merely asking that we look at ourselves and be sure of what we are fighting for, for me this is a fight for our freedom and our rights, these swine are way out of control and high and wild on corruption.

code.....you got mail

LeadNotFollow -- Empirical data on losses from online filesharing do not exist. There is none.

If you want data concerning the recording industry, start at www.azoz.com/music/features/0008/html.

The link was supposed to be...
http://www.azoz.com/music/features/0008.html

thankyou gdZiemann.

If I download/share music then I am not a pirate or a thief, I'm a "copyright infringer". Do I feel guilty? Not a bit. Most of the music I've downloaded I would never have bought anyway so there's no loss in income to the industry there. In fact, I bought more CDs after I started using P2P than before (until the boycott, of course.) So the industry made a mistake when they threatened to seek me out and sue me. They lost my business. I may be a copyright infringer but, what's more important to the recording industry, I'm no longer a customer.

the MPAA is ok. I wouldn't put them in the same category as the RIAA.

They have a real issue with piracy though that they have been combating for years now, and it's not file sharing. Movies are reproduced and sold more then any other medium, and almost always available before thier actual release. the movie industry gets riped off majorly in asian markets because of this.

to clarify "piracy" is copying for commercial redistribution and profit.

IFEELFEE I AGREE!

ronnie, I will have to disagree with you. I spent a few hours reading a hefty book about music law.

A CD costs but a few pennies to press. The recording fees are not that high, and studio time is minimizmed since the product is recycled and a hit song is determined by a literal formula. The CD is distributed and marketed.

The total price of all of that boils down to a grand total of around 75 cents to $2 per cd. An individual cd costs more to press, market, and sell, obviously. We're not talking garage bands. The more you make, the cheaper it is. They make millions upon millions. $2 to manufacture a cd is a relatively high price.

The cost of producing albums is very low. It doesn't cost the RIAA millions to make an album. They might spend a high price marketing, but it evens out. Not to mention that marketing is about the only thing they really spend money on.

LeadNotFollow: Piracy is stealing copyrighted material. And no, we don't advocate it here. If you download something without paying, you aren't pirating unless it's copyrighted. And if you are downloading copyrighted material, might I suggest a boycott instead? There are also no numbers supporting the RIAA's claims. They've made a weak correlation and that is all. Numbers don't matter. The RIAA has the money to buy any laws or politicians it wants.

did I say IFEELFEE? sorry IFEELFREE.......but I do feel a fee comming! sorry

I agree with IFeelFree, *supposing* I have DL'd music via P2P, I still wouldnt have bought the album even if file sharing hadn't excisted, in the first place, I have trashed so many crap mp3's... sure maybe we are "copyright infringers" and the RIAA are "human rights infringers" their label doesn't seem to bother them and my label doesn't bother me, but please remember that anyone who sells something doesnt want to give a little a way for free, unless there is something in it for THEM, and thats the funny thing THERE IS SOMETHING IN IT FOR THEM! I listen to allot of obscure elctro music mostly stuff on the warp label www.warprecords.com some of its good some of it isnt, so maybe I DL a track or two, and I like that artist, so I go and buy the album! theres your money you greedy little bitch! but alas maybe there is more money to be had from suing minors, I doubt it I wonder low long it takes those swine to work that out.

Here is a question hopefully some of you can answer. If you could not easily download albums or movies off the internet, would you be paying $44.95 a month for high speed internet access? Would you be buying 160 gig hardrives? Would you buy cdr's in 100 packs? How about blank jewel cases? Maybe a dvd/rw drive? My point to this is that mp3's and filesharing does alot to help out the economy. Maybe the big 5 should market blank cd's, maybe Universal could market a portable jump drive with a few mp3's "exclusive" mpe's loaded onto it for consumers. These are only a few crappy ideas....imagine what they could do. I hope they understand that filesharing will never die, it will only get bigger. They need to stop suing people and adapt to the new surrondings. There is a ton of money to be made off the internet.

Justifying your actions by saying you do whatever you want because you paid 2600 for your computer is essentially saying there are no issues with viewing kiddie porn on your PC as long as you paid a hefty price for your computer.

I assumed you up/downloaded music since you said "we" have been labeled pirates. The RIAA has only labeled users of P2P pirates. They haven't been calling anyone else by that name.

Indeed it is a fight for our freedom and rights. The most important aspect of our movement, since we aren't a multi-billion dolloar "for-profit" organization, is respect and credibility. The minute somebody says "I do whatever I want," the credibility of the movement changes from what it currently is to the credibility of a 3rd grader trying to get his way.

This isn't necessarily about killing the RIAA. It's about opening up music, getting rid of the garbage, lowering prices, and paying for music because artists should be paid. Unfortunately the RIAA shot themselves in the foot and decided against that. So stopping the RIAA has become our means to reach our goal. That's my perspective of what we are fighting for. In addition to, in the end, revamping the DMCA and stopping ACCOPS.

RIGHTO SHERM!! firstly what do you think a boycoytt is? "To abstain from or act together in abstaining from using, buying, or dealing with as an expression of protest or disfavor or as a means of coercion" -thats how I see it! I am not purchasing ANY music from ANY of the BIG5. Are you really suggesting that NOBODY here participates in the downloading or uploading of copyrighted material?! are you saying people should boycott all music, including DL/UL?! is that what you are all about?

I have the solution. As I mentioned last month, we need to refer to the RIAA as a "Terrorist Organization". The media likes Spinning, I say we take advantege of theirmethods. If we can associate the RIAA and similar groups to Terrorism, it will be smeared throughout the media. They cannot help it. Unfortunately you do not need to prove anything anymore in this society. All you have to do is make an accusation about something or someone and they will have that stigma for life. So when the RIAA comes knocking, I say you fight their subpoenas, but make sure you run before the news cameras and claim victim. The media loves victims. Make the RIAA look like what they really are. Bullies.

SHERM YOU ARE A SICK FUCK!! HOW DARE YOU MAKE SPECULATION ON MY PART THAT CHILD PORNOGRAPHY IS OK, I SAID THAT "IL DO WHATEVER THE HELL I WANT TO WITH MY COMPUTER" I DID NOT SAY THAT INCLUDED DOWNLOADING IMAGES OR MOVIES OF UNDERAGE CHILDREN BEING MOLESTED. ID BE VERY FUCKING CAREFUL WHAT YOU SAY!!

I'm saying to boycott RIAA products. I see downloading RIAA music as doing nothing more than saying "screw you, i just want it free." While I still hold the "screw you" sentiment, I DO believe things need to change now. The RIAA doesn't allow that. I also see downloading a violation in principle of the boycott.

Note: I think artists should be paid. P2P never hurt any artist anywhere. However, with my vision for the future of music, I see artists offering their product using P2P as their "riaa" instead of their RIAA. If it's free, then great. I'm glad the artists will realize that their profits come from shows and merchandise. If not, then I will be more than happy to pay a few dollars per album, even if I have to pay to download it. As long as it's reasonable ($5 is good), and the artist see 100% of the money.

To me, it's cutting corners. I am no longer interested in anything the RIAA has to offer. I don't want it. They can pay me if they want me to take it, otherwise hell no.

Also, I think you contradicted yourself in your last post. I'm not trying to antagonize either, but I'm trying to illustrate my point.

Boycott: "To abstain from or act together in abstaining from using, buying, or dealing..."

Listening to RIAA music is using, and uploading it is dealing.

Do I think it's wrong to use P2P? Hell no, that's why I'm here too. And free P2P never hurt ANYONE. But I have chosen to boycott RIAA products. And your definition does include not "using" or "dealing" in addition to not buying.

OH AND....SHERM!! you are obviously pretty bad at working out and understanding what I am saying, so lets make one thing clear, I will say whatever I want, if I havent said it, it is because I do not believe in it, whatever that maybe, SO if I didnt type something Id appreciate it if you didn't pratically tell the world I did, you little worm! especially if you are accusing me of being PRO PEADOPHILE.

Chill out. I didn't say you advocated it or anything of the sort. I was pointing out a flaw in what you said from my point of view. You said you'd do what you want because you paid 2600 for your Mac. That's not the case and the fact is you can't do whatever you want. The child pornography example was meant to make my point obvious and clear, not to imply that you think it was ok.

My intent was for you to see it and think something like "oh yeah, good point.. because I also am of the opinion that child porn is wrong." It wasn't meant to come off as an accusation.

Take it outside children...

Leadnotfollow: I personally do what the hell I want with my computer since I shelled out £2,600

Me: Your logic is flawed, because a pedophile could just as easily say the same thing. That was my point. It's not sufficient justification.


That's all I have to say. This is one of the dumbest conversations I've ever been involved in.

yeah, thumbtack. I'm sorry. I'll be back tommorow. Apologies.

ok, ok fuck it! were both on the same side, I can see from your last post that you are not totally insane, but id say a little edgy and confused, I did not contradict myself either, if you read carefuly, I said that I listen to obscure electro stuff, which are on small labels such SKAR and WARP which have fuck all to do with the BIG5, and im not about to boycott MUSIC thats insane. I have no idea why you are pulling everything I write to pieces and putting words in my mouth, but ther internet is a free uncensored medium [to a certain extent] so go for it, just no more pedo stuff that takes it too far, either who im sure your a good bloke.

allright this is off topic but i gotta know what you all think. I was browsing files in kazaa and noticed an mp3 with the description AG# INsertRandomNUmberHere. After seeing this i did a search AG#. The result is RIAA controlled music with that discription. anybody know what this means?

All music is copyrighted material. Only the RIAA considers it theft to listen to it.

Ronnie77 -- The artist pays all costs of studio production. This is NOT part of the label's cost to manufacture a CD. Neither is marketing and promotion. Still, according to their most recently available financial statements, EMI's Cost of Goods Sold (the cost to physically produce a CD) is hovering at about 70% of net income.

In other words, the record industry claims that a CD costs about $7 to $9 dollars to manufacture.

nooooooooooooooo dont let them take away my dvd scrs

"allright this is off topic but i gotta know what you all think. I was browsing files in kazaa and noticed an mp3 with the description AG# INsertRandomNUmberHere. After seeing this i did a search AG#. The result is RIAA controlled music with that discription. anybody know what this means?"

Heh, The RIAA uses AudioGrabber? That would about figure, them use the worst mp3 compressor available. I've abandoned MP3 in favor of MP4 format (MPEG-4 Audio) for compressing my CD collection, and the sound quality is amazing.

"See the movie industry knows that if they leak a new release out it will end up on the internet and they will have a great promotional tool without having to pay for it. They just want to pretend they don't know how it works and then cry for sympathy. The reality is that these online copies pretty much suck in quality and about the only thing they are good for is helping a person to decide whether they want to spend the 10 bucks to go see a movie or not. If that much of the leakage is coming from within then you can't tell me it isn't being done on purpose."

George had tried to get people to see the this very point about the RIAA companies a long time ago, and NONE of us posted anything much about it.

Sorry, GZ, but there has been SO MUCH to bitch and gripe about... the fact that the RIAA & Members had been the ones flooding p2p in the first place (in order to drown out authorized independent music) was not realized.

(Well, I kinda sorta knew it in my heart each time I noticed that RIAA "popular" tunes were always "available" on p2p and it took a dickens of a time to get our music listed via any p2p.)

Do I get the kiwpie, or a door prize?

Shmoo, of Electric Gypsy

oops, quoted captdunsel without credit... sorry cap'

unlike movies it doesnt take millions to produce a CD

Oh gee, what would I do.... STOP GIVING PEOPLE THE FUCKING MOVIE 2 WEEKS AHEAD OF TIME.....

They dont really need critics to review their movies... they can promote the moive without them,basically its there fault that it leaks,and right on purfus that'd be another good idea if they wouldnt want their moives to leak out

:norts:: Outside of anime that hasn't been released in this country yet (and the Japanese seem a lot more lenient about such things, IMO), I personally have never wanted to d/l an entire movie anyway. If the quality doesn't suffer, the hd will. Even with this new comp, I don't want one file taking up that much space unless it's a program and does something.

I think the MPAA is like a small child trying to emulate big brother RIAA, personally.

And I agree with TransformerX. In fact, get rid of critics. 9 of 10 I have never agreed with a movie critic anyway. They usually turn their nose up and anything that isn't some four hankie over-budgett dramatic piece anyway.

Anyone could have came to this conclusion very easily before this article came out, I know I sure did, and you can see it here. And I wrote this a month before I launched my site.

here's the link since it never showed up: http://www.thelastvoice.org/cgi-bin/dir.cgi?file=editorials/september2003/respect_what.htm

that link is funny kneo24 :....why do they think the 4 out of 10 movies arent profitable? problably blame it on phases of the moon or something else stupid

The reason Online movie theatres don't exist is because of a lack of market. to say... To downolad a descent quality MP3 VBR file of 3 min. is about 5-9MB, a good video clip for 3min is over 30-60MB, the reason is bacause of a lack of better compression techniques, and a fast internet connection. For the online movie theatre to work, everyone needs to get VDSL (30MBps dl 15MBps ul) to download a good quality movie in a descent ammount of time.

I don't havte the MPAA, nor do I love them, it's kinda a mutural thing, plus their product is like 9000% better than the RIAA's best, plus it's usually less than $20 to get the dvd of it. RIAA CD, Just is sencless to ever purchase.

I would just like to say that I do advocate piracy.

The MPAA certainly doesn't crack down as much as the RIAA simply because they are the second layer on the bottom of the intellectual barrel. The RIAA is the first.

Also, I have friends who were busted by the MPAA. Although it had no consequences for them whatsoever, the MPAA will be punished for the annoyance.