"Likewise, with my film I'm not assuming that every download is a missed sale, but I'm sure there are at least *some* missed sales. And every missed sale is money out of my pocket."

You are forgetting one important thing here. You HAVE to prove that you lost a sale which is imossible to do. In the case of a store theft, something physical and tangible is taken and can be proved.

You also seem to forget that when companies price their product, they already add their expected cost of piracy to their prices that they charge not to mention that they already get a small percentage of each blank medium (DVDRs, CDRs, etc...) sold.

Again, my point is NOT defending piracy in any form. But when billion dollar companies or its owners cry about losing money, the general public finds it hard to feel bad for them. Sorry but as a hard working citizen who DOESNT pirate anything at all, I dont feel sorry for companies who lose that extra billion dollars especially when they cannot legally prove that even one sale was lost from piracy without asking each person who downloaded the product if they would have ever purchased the product.

A few points here that I can agree with is the fact that is would be impossible to got out and "prove" that each download is a missed sale but I look at thew flip side of this as well - what if each person who downloaded the film produces movie stubs? Does that make it any better? or now does it become a matter of "Well..ok you saw it but did you see it again after downloadin it?" And how do they prove they downloaded it before they saw the film, if in fact the download made them decide to go see the film in the first place?

And going back up to fwtep - I am not saying that just because it is a huge film from a major company that is is ok to put the film up on P2P. If you read what I said I say that the MPAA has, in the past, clearly stated *they* don't care about minor films being bootlegged. So I want to hear the FBI, the MPAA and everyone else who is saying all these busts are great and all the hopla is a good thing to start explaining why they don't go after all the people who bootleg/download/share small indy films or even B and C films. It is fairly wishful thinking to sit here and think "it is great that there is so much effort being put into SW3 and bootleg's. Now the MPAA and FBI will go after the peopole who have done this to my film!" I don't recall the last time I read any press about a "major" bust of someone duplicating/bootlegging Fred Olen Ray films or Rafel Neusbaum films or so on.

Couple final things on this topic I want to say. First too many here are too close to the issue to look at it objectively. The average Joe isn't going to give a hoot if one of the big studios gets ripped off. Ask Joe Average and he'll quickly tell you the price of movie tickets are way over priced and so too DVD's. Second, the point some keep missing is this type of "crime" gets special treatment if you happen to be a fat cat and have some group that has contributed a lot of cash to both political parties and they expect something in return for their "investment" and they get it. Not true if YOU were in the same situation.

For all the huffing and puffing and flag waving you see the reality is in America like most of the rest of the world there is a two tier legal system where the very rich get special treatment and everyone else something less. That's a REAL problem and something everyone should be worried about, not fluff like Lucas suffering a "loss" from some movie pirates. Remember this is suppose to be a Democracy where everyone has equal rights. Yea right, sure we do, only on paper.

Okay, what about all the crap movies and terrible albums people DIDN'T buy after watching/listening after downloading on a P2P network? Think about how much money was saved by the consumer by NOT buying media that sucked anyway. You know, the CD with 1 good song, the latest Vin Diesel movie.

True Example: I downloaded a bunch of songs from the latest Yeah, Yeah, Yeahs album. I liked them, so I purchased the album. I downloaded the same number of songs from a Breaking Benjamin album and decided that I didn't like it and therefore didn't buy the CD. I saved $15.

I'm sure that $15 got pumped back into the economy one way or another. Like any other market, things tend to correct themselves. Interest rates drop - home prices rise.

Do we ever stop and think that, by and large, perhaps the movie industry is too large and bloated anyway. If the day ever comes that real actors get replaced by CGI, then in some future world, people will be able to make their own movies anyway, so the system will fall apart anyway. But I doubt it will.

I can remember reading something in the late 80's about the demise of the studio, the fall of Hollywood... But it hasn't. Hollywood is still producing the same bloated movies they always have, and real filmmakers still struggle to find money to make decent films.

Movies, music, and TV are tailored to the 12-22 year old “xtreme” generation suburban American teen anyway. I’d guess that same age range is the largest group of P2P downloaders. That is where the money is, so maybe if the 12-22 olds kill the music/movie industry; the industry will have to start getting creative and start earning their money again.

Gees, I’m wound up. I watched a bit on the news about how video games are more popular than movies with today’s kids. Advertisers are fully aware of this and have started placing ads directly into the virtual worlds of these games. Since the games are connected to online servers, the games can (or will) download the latest advertisements. So lets say, for example, that you are playing a racing game. You will be able to drive past a Mc Donald’s and see the latest sandwich offering plastered on a roadside billboard.

With movies predicted to be more interactive in the future, I’d suspect that those sorts of “imbedded” ads would be commonplace.

Yikes! Can’t we just go back and watch good old 35mm films and be happy?

Even in small town america you know its illegal to jaywalk, and if you jaywalk, you take the chance of being ticketed for your crime. Its a personal choice. Your decision. So is stealing, by the internet or otherwise. The internet just made it easier to steal. They can't see you stealing. But its still a theft. How many times have you all driven somewhere and said, "Where's a cop when you need one?!" when you saw some idiot doing something stupid that endangered lives on the road? Then get boiling mad when a cop pulls you over for doing something considerably less stupid? Yet, it was your decision to do the considerably less stupid thing. Pirating videos is a crime, and the FBI is involved because its occured across state borders. They issued 10 indictments at various locations with more to follow. Believe it or not, not all the department of the FBI are involved in hunting for terrorists. Fwtep you should have personally gone after your pirator with tooth and nails. Hired your own lawyer, fired off letters to cease and desist, and sue the socks off both the pirator and the local District Attorney, police, etc for not enforcing the law. Tell the attorney he can have all the money he can get from any of them. Make it a big issue in YOUR local newspaper. Want the laws enforced? Step up to the plate. Every downloader of video and music who does so with the intent of ripping off the video/music company who produces that product -and its a product just surely as if it was a pair of Wranglers blue jeans- should be fined and punished, as should be the internet site that facilitated its download. Especially the ISP that faciliated the download. And its bunk to say that well, I thought it was okay to do so because everyone else is doing it. Or its a small crime.. Who am I hurting? Everyone is this forum should be supporting the indictment of any ISP that directly identifys itself with facilitating video and/or music pirating. This is not a big issue with me. Its just an issue. Like whether to jaywalk. Or not. What I find a big issue is trying to get a music company to give me the time of day when I ask for sync rights to a piece of music a bride would like to dance to at her wedding. Now that is a hugh issue for me. Whether to violate the law in order to make a living. Or not. Austrialia got it right. Why can't we?

Its isn't "right" in America because Joe Average can't afford to inflluence Congess (that writes the laws) to make them more favorable unless of course you're part of one of the special interest groups that routinely throws big bucks at Congress. Which in my book is problem one.

It isn't what the founding father wanted, yet over the decades that is exactly what has happened. The rich and powerful through special interests have in effect bought Congress and Congress does their biding. One area what that clear is in copyright laws. You as a private citizen or small time operator have little say. However if you are one of the Hollywood elite you pretty much have laws written that guarantee you truckloads of cash for decades down the road.

Other groups too have profited. Take the phone companies or the utilities or go further back and check the history of big steel or the coal industry before that or the lumber industry, airlines, drug companies, etc., etc. Big industry regardless what field always has the ear of Congress because it has always been "legal" to influence Congress with one form or another of what's really bribes called "campaign contributions". It isn't a Republican or Democrat issue, its the political system itself that's corrupt and Joe Average always pays through the nose because of it.

I don't want laws enforced SELECTIVELY and when it comes to copyright issues that's always what happens. You as the little guy can't get the FBI to act. If you are a big Hollywood studio, just pick up the phone and remind your favorite politician how much you gave him in your last political contribution.

History lesson:

Historian Lord Action back in the late 1800's issued a stern warnings that political power is the most serious threat to liberty. He said: "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely."

How true, how true. Especially in today's climate. Congress is suppose to be our elected representatives and is suppose to represent you and me, instead they are beholding to special interests which in effect control Congress and to a great extend determine policy and how laws are written and selectively enforced. Remember that this Memorial Day where so many died not protecting our rights, rather protecting the system where the rich get richer and Joe Average keeps paying more and more in taxes where the political system has gotten so corrupt Congress doesn't even try to pretend otherwise anymore.

What I find a big issue is trying to get a music company to give me the time of day when I ask for sync rights to a piece of music a bride would like to dance to at her wedding. Now that is a huge issue for me. Whether to violate the law in order to make a living. Or not. Austrialia got it right. Why can't we?

Amen to that, WedVidMan. You've got that exactly right: "Whether to violate the law in order to make a living." That's the position we're all in right now. (Composing your own music, via ACID or other means, is really not a viable option). Hopefully some court case will bubble up and force the industry to take action. I would expect that some videographer, like yourself, will sue based on some principle related to discriminatory practices, with the threat that certain uses could fall into something similar to public domain (read, no license fees) if the industry doesn't make accomodations to smaller players.

At least that's my hope.

Sigh!

You HAVE to prove that you lost a sale which is imossible to do.
Just as a point of clarification, you do not have to prove a lost sale. The way the court interprets this is that any download is a potentially lost sale. No one can safely argue that it is or isn't, so the court will generally fall on the conservative side of this issue.
FWIW, we're deeply involved in something like this now over, and the court takes the reasonable position that any sale that a competitor makes after the first violation is potentially a sale that the other side would have made. In reality, it's probably not factual, but in a punitive setting, this becomes the conservative and traditional view. Further, if they can demonstrate that the website in question KNEW they were violating the law, treble damages apply, so man...I'd feel sorry for the ISP that hosted the StarWars film if they're nailed for this one. Potentially very many millions in $$, plus the attorney fees.

When it comes to IP and the internet, fortunately the court allows certain things to be held self-evident. Because as you rightly point out, there is no way to prove a negative in this situation.

Billyboy commented that Joe Average can't afford to influence Congress to enact laws that he'd like. Well, duh. How do you think it would be if Congress acted upon literally everything that everyone asked? You think anything would ever get done? You think things would be better? You think there'd be enough time in the day to get all of the laws written? You think anyone would be able to know and understand all of the laws? It would be awful. Things may not be perfect now, but they're better than that would be.

But it all comes down to this: Corporations may or may not be evil. Congress may or may not be in the pocket of big business. Movies, DVDs, CDs, software, video games, etc. might be expensive. BUT SO WHAT??? That is in NO WAY an excuse to steal. Period. No "buts." A DVD's too expensive? Too bad for you; either rent it, which is dirt cheap, or leave it alone. Entertainment such as what "Hollywood" dishes out is not a right. If you can't afford it, too bad. You want to talk about what the founding fathers wanted? Well they sure as hell weren't saying that it is the inalienable right of all Americans to have access to cheap entertainment and that they can steal it if they think it's too expensive or that the CEO is too rich.

So I don't care about Congress, the FBI, Michael Eisner's income, etc. None of that has anything to do with whether it's OK to steal. And I KNOW that there's no way to completely stop piracy-- how stupid do you think I am?-- but it can be curtailed, and one way to do that is to make sure everyone knows that it's WRONG. And no one is going to get that message if you give rationalizations like that it's a lossless crime (nothing physical is taken) or that corporations are evil. Another way to do it is to start going after the criminals. No one respects a law that's not enforced at all.

As for no one looking after the little guys like me, that may be true in a direct, literal way, but we're helped collaterally. The sites that illegally provide downloads for Star Wars also provide downloads to products made by us little guys.

the SW film was not hosted on a web site, no files are hosted there -- the website that was shut down was a search engine listing type site that had a list of software checksum and names (torrents) ... the SAME info can be found on google and any search engine as well as on IRC and 100's of newsgroups, plus was even listed on yahoo by name .. so by the same criteria of shutting down that one website - ALL of the above should be shut down as equal culprits... but it is easier to target a bunch a 15-18 year olds who run that non profit site (and then look good) instead of addressing the internal leak right away ... when it cost $100 to take a family of 4 to a theater, any wonder theater numbers are down (and a popular solution is the raise prices) vs. dvd sales and rentals are up 667% !!! When you can rent the movie for a couple $$ and don't feel so beaten up . and if you like it - you buy it ..

It is not downloading movies which are hurting overall theater numbers - it is the quality and prices.. It IS not right to download them (well is is legal is Canada) , but it is a way of life in many countries for all software and movies ..

"if they can demonstrate that the website in question KNEW they were violating the law, treble damages apply"

It goes way beyond "deonstrate", the law requires PROOF beyond a reasonable doubt.

That's a mighty steep hill to climb. Your typical ISP doesn't routiney monitor its clients content or make a determination what they're doing is legal or not. In fact playing "dumb" is a typical policy. For example there are naughty newsgroups that from time to time may have illegal images that many ISP's provide access to. By not monitoring what content appears a ISP can claim their policy is not to monitor and they only expect clients to follow their rules and obey laws that apply. So if some site does break the law the ISP can't be held responsible no more than a phone company can be held responsible for someone using its network to make obscene phone calls, ransom demands, theats, etc..

Any illegal activity is almost always reported after the fact by some third party at which time to protect itself the ISP then may take action.

NOTHING is our legal system is held self-evident. Thank God. Guilt must be p r o v e n. Everyone is assumed innocent until proven guility in a court of law.

"Everyone is assumed innocent until proven guility in a court of law."


errrrr- not anymore where you live ... but that is a different topic ....

Amazing hot often some need to build a Straw Man when they can't argue their position effectively. Nobody has come close to suggesting its ok to steal. Its equally silly to imply that Congess should/could respond to everyone's request, or spin things to make it appear corporations are evil. Nobody said that either.

**sigh.....
You do NOT have to prove damages. Do a little research, it would do you good. Whether it's demonstrated as number of downloads, number of accesses, or simply by the amount of traffic the site has received, the plaintiff may submit a number and as long as he can substantiate it with reasonable information and evidence, then the court will generally accept those. The demonstration of illegal use or hosting is the greater challenge, and in this particular case, probably wouldn't be that hard to demonstrate.
From there, it's merely a matter of assigning a $$ amount to damages, both actual and punitive. Today's legal climate will typically assign substantial punitive damage awards in light of difficulty in demonstrating actual. That's just on the copyright side of the issue. In the Lucas case, he also has trademark issues that come into play, and while the maximum exposure to the ISP or perpetrator for actual is 100K by current law, punitive can stretch way beyond that in terms of treble damages based on lost sales. Lost sales can be demonstrated in a wide variety of ways, again; every download will be considered a lost sale whether actual or figurative. Copyright law plus the Lanham Act ain't a pretty combination.
Then you add in the lost sync rights, performance royalties, mechanicals, music rights, exclusivity, territorial rights losses, PPV revenue losses, it all adds up very, very fast.
BTW, in the Grokster case, it was successfully argued that "free listeners" also are generally not buyers, and by the same token, it could likely be argued that people that download will likely not attend the theater nor buy the DVD. I'd not agree with that, but I'll bet a good attorney could make a very convincing argument.

BB: "...the law requires PROOF beyond a reasonable doubt"

Actually Billy I believe Spot and others had moved into the civil side of things since they are talking about damages etc. In that setting there is no such creature as proof beyond a reasonable doubt. The burden drops significantly to what is called a preponderance of the evidence. Much easier hill to climb when proving something. I just have to get past the 50% mark in making a judge buy my side of the argument.

It wasn't until the 1970s that Natives could legally practice there religion.
Actually, NAC is still illegal in many states, regardless of whether you hold a Census card or not. But that's an entirely different thread not relevant to this one. :-)

Billyboy wrote: Amazing hot often some need to build a Straw Man when they can't argue their position effectively. Nobody has come close to suggesting its ok to steal. Its equally silly to imply that Congess should/could respond to everyone's request, or spin things to make it appear corporations are evil. Nobody said that either.
------
Billyboy, if you want to discuss it, can you at least reply to what my posts are saying? I'm doing my best to figure out what you're saying but you always come back with political crap which has nothing to do with the issue. And yes, read the other posts, there's been plenty of "corporations are evil" comments. And yes, people have been rationalizing piracy.

You said it was unfair that Congress acts when big business asks, but for the Joe Average it doesn't. I said it would be worse if it acted for every Joe Average, but now you're saying that was not your point. So here's a simple question with followups for clarification: With regard to Congress, what is your point? Whom should Congress act for?

My thought is this: The blame for piracy falls 100% upon the pirates-- people who make it availble AND people who get it. If something is illegal, and fairly so (I believe copyright law is a good thing), then there is no excuse for breaking that law.

As for whoever it was who said that movies are too expensive, well, adjusting for inflation they're less expensive now than they have been in decades (maybe *ever*). Back in the late 70's for example, the national average for adult prices were about $2.23; now it's $6.21. But adjusting for inflation, $2.23 is about $7.24 today! So on average, movie tickets cost LESS today!

Here's a site where you can check inflation dollars:
http://www.westegg.com/inflation/

And here's a site that shows national ticket price averages for 1948-2004:
http://www.natoonline.org/statisticstickets.htm

In Los Angeles (and presumably New York) there are a couple of theaters that do charge up to $13 (usually on weekend evenings), but they're not the norm (and are really luxurious). Even so, you don't have to go to those theaters if you don't want to. The average theater price here is $8-9. But income here is higher than the national average, even at fast food places and supermarkets. For example, In & Out Burger starts at almost double the minimum wage.

And DVD's today cost the same or less than VHS did in the 80's. And that's dollar-to-dollar, no adjusting for inflation. The average sell-through new release in the late 80's/early 90's was $19.95. The average DVD in 2005 is also $19.95. So there has been no dollar amount increase, yet the quality is about double, and usually you get far more for your money (commentaries, documentaries, deleted scenes, etc.).

Back when movies only cost a quarter to get in, the average YEARLY salary was about $1250. Today it's about $40,000, which is 32 times that! And guess what? 32x 25cents is $8, which is higher than today's average price. I know that taking a family to the movies is expensive, but it's no more expensive (relative to income) than it used to be. (Note: I remember an episode of The Honeymooners where it was revealed that Ralp's weekly salary was $52, or maybe it was $57, I can't remember. That means $2704-$2964 per year! That means that adjusting for inflation he paid about $10 for a movie ticket. )

Fred

Spot
NAC and many other practices.
All I know is theft is theft and the more the $ the more the theft.

Jon

wakiyan wrote: (Sasquatch Hunters) Where does this phrase Sasquatch come from. I'll bet you did not get the permission from the people that created this name .I'll bet you just went ahead and used the name without any consideration for a peoples legends and language.
-------------

Well, I named my movie "Primeval" not "Sasquatch Hunters." Sony renamed it, so ask them. But movie titles can't be copyrighted, so it's a moot point. Plus, it's the name of an animal. Is "Beagle" copyrightable? Is "Horse" copyrightable? Even if they were, the copyright would be long expired by now. Not only that, but native Americans, at least at the time, didn't believe in property ownership, so they wouldn't have had a problem with anyone using the word.

Anyway, how does the plight of native Americans have anything to do with copyright law? That's like saying "The Spaniards killed the Mayans, so it's OK for me to drive drunk." How are they related??? "Hey, the Nazis killed Jews so I'm going to steal a car."

Hint: The FBI doesn't get involved in civil suits. Till now we were discussing "crimes" in which case the standard is proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Another thing that typically happens in this forum is one side keeps moving the goal posts. This often happens when their arguments doesn't hold water.

You want FACTS, here's a few:

"Agents from the FBI Cyber Division shut down the elitetorrents.org Web site and posted a message Wednesday saying: "This site has been permanently shut down by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Individuals involved in the operation and use of the Elite Torrents network are under investigation for criminal copyright infringement."

Do you see the words criminal investigation?

more: http://www.jsonline.com/bym/news/may05/328837.asp

Well, at least the new department of Homeland Security found something to do with the billions Congress gave it. Shut down a site run by teens. Wow, I'm impressed. Not!

well there already was a 'Sasquatch Hunters' 1997 anyway

http://www.enterbasement.com/bigfoot/titles.htm