Is This Real? Is This Recall? MPAA Hosts Screening Of Total Recall To 'Educate' Congress On 'Benefits' Of IP Protection

from the is-that-real?-do-you-recall? dept

It's been said that Hollywood is completely out of ideas, and all it does these days is the same thing over and over again. That seems to be the case both on the policy front and with its movies. So how perfect is it that the MPAA's gift-of-the-month to Congress is a showing of the remake of the movie Total Recall? As we noted in our post about the MPAA's special showing of the latest Batman flick, to get around breaking gift giving guidelines, the MPAA includes a special "educational component," before its movies, which somehow makes it okay. We heard from attendees of the Batman showing that (amazingly) no mention of copyright or piracy issues was made in the "educational" component. Rather it was a presentation about the Natural History Museum and how it was doing things with IMAX, as well as a Time Warner presentation about its online offerings like HBO GO, TV Everywhere and Ultra Violet.

However, this month, the MPAA will more directly address the copyright issue, as you can see in the invite below, where they note the "educational" component will be about "the impact of film in the global economy and the benefit of IP protection to global trade."
As the tagline of the movie says, "Is it real? Is it recall?" One has to imagine that the "educational" content will be particularly one sided, and I'd question how "real" the lesson will be. The stats that the MPAA is fond of throwing out are rarely anywhere close to reality. The presentation almost certainly won't "recall" the fact that due to the MPAA's own ridiculously extreme position on "IP protection" in "global trade," the ACTA agreement has more or less killed the agreement (at least for the majority of Europe).

If Congress wants an educational lesson on the role of IP and international trade, they might want to "recall" that the MPAA is just about the last place to go to get any sense of "reality."


Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 1st, 2012 @ 12:13pm

    a total recall remake?
    Now with four tits instead of three!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Donnicton, Aug 1st, 2012 @ 12:15pm

    Dear government,

    Please grant us more IP protections, so that we may hold onto our exclusive right to continue ironically cheapening our brand with crappy remakes and sequels to classic movies before piracy can cheapen it for us.

    Thank you,

    MPAA

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 1st, 2012 @ 12:15pm

    but, after getting their 'encouragement', all Congress members will be falling over themselves to agree with the MPAA and do it's bidding. when caught, they can deny it saying 'was it real? was it recall?' i dont remember. i'm not sure!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Tunnen (profile), Aug 1st, 2012 @ 12:18pm

    But the MPAA has 5 kids to feed! Think of the children! =P

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Aug 3rd, 2012 @ 3:41pm

      Re:

      Actually they rebooted 4 of the kids into grittier smack heads who give handjobs round the back of the local wal-mart.

      The 5th one has been greenlighted into Rob Schneider comedy and I'm not sure which fate is worse....

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    W Klink (profile), Aug 1st, 2012 @ 12:27pm

    Ironic

    They're giving free movies to congressmen to convince them that free movies are bad.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 1st, 2012 @ 12:28pm

    "it was a presentation about the Natural History Museum and how it was doing things with IMAX, as well as a Time Warner presentation about its online offerings like HBO GO, TV Everywhere and Ultra Violet"

    Since when do watching commercials and seeing advertisements constitute education?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Lord Binky, Aug 1st, 2012 @ 12:35pm

    As proof of piracy being a problem, they are showing how piracy has stolen their writers forcing them to remake a another movie.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
     
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 1st, 2012 @ 12:37pm

    Oh Pirate Mike--

    Let's look at what you said then: "By the way, we're hearing that the MPAA hosted a "special screening" of the new Batman movie for members of Congress and their staff. Now, that would normally run afoul of gift giving guidelines... but they worked around that by spending the first 15 minutes "educating members and staff on important issues" (take a guess what those might be)." http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120718/14310819747/holy-conflict-interest-tell-congress-that-publ ic-good-is-more-important-than-their-chance-to-cameo-batman.shtml

    Funny how you don't even bother to link to that article. But now you're saying that the educational component wasn't even about copyright. LOL! Jump the gun much? Your idiocy knows no bounds--and now you're trying to make predictions about this one? LMAO! Could you be any more of a tool?

    And I'm still waiting for you to explain whether Senator Leahy *actually* violated Senate ethics rules. Remember? You claimed that he did, but then you refused to even name the specific rule that he violated. Fact is, you didn't have all the facts and you couldn't actually make that conclusion. Fact is, you were doing what you always do--spreading lies and manipulating your readers. You will go to any length to discredit anyone and anything to do with copyright. Reality be damned.

    We both know that all you care about are the headlines. All you care about is spreading FUD. It doesn't matter if it's true. It only matters if you can say it and conceivably, maybe (perhaps in an alternate reality) it's ""true"" (one set of quotation marks just doesn't capture how far you are willing to go). We all know that you don't consult the actual law when making your "legal arguments." You've admitted that much explicitly.

    When you said Leahy was violating the ethics rules, you didn't mean that he was *actually* violating the rules. Your dishonesty is (and I say this honestly) one of the most despicable things I've ever seen on the 'net. And if you think I'm going to get tired of calling you out--you're dead wrong. I haven't even started yet.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Aug 1st, 2012 @ 12:55pm

      Re:

      Even if there is no such rule, the fact a senator is so blatently in bed with industry is something that should alarm everyone.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Aug 1st, 2012 @ 1:38pm

      Re:

      Could you be any more of a blatant industry shill?!?! The MPAA presents Congress with a movie night to screen a REMAKE, and spend 15 minutes "educating" them on international copyright,... So, 15 minutes out of two or more hours,... and you are calling Mike unethical?!?! What are these Congressmen paying to see this movie??? Why do my Congressmen get to see a movie for FREE after listening to your association LOBBY them for 15 minutes, and NOT have to characterize that as a GIFT?!?! Even at insurance sales conferences, half the day is spent in meetings and sessions.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Aug 1st, 2012 @ 1:54pm

        Re: Re:

        Oh, and if you don't think it's free:
        A Member, officer, or employee may accept an offer of “free attendance” at a widely attended event if: (1) invited by the organizing event sponsor; (2) at least 25 persons from outside Congress will be attendance, (3) attendance at the event is open to members from throughout a given industry or profession, or to a range of persons interested in an issue; and (4) it is connected to the official’s Senate duties. See Senate Rule 35.1(d)(1).

        * May also accept free attendance for one accompanying individual.
        * May accept a meal that is offered to all attendees as part of the event.
        * May accept local transportation to the event, if offered by the event sponsor.
        * May not accept a gift bag, unless it is valued below the Gifts Rule limit or qualifies for an exception to the rule.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          ltlw0lf (profile), Aug 1st, 2012 @ 4:11pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          See Senate Rule 35.1(d)(1).

          18 USC 201(b)(1).

          If a civil servant can be charged for this, a congress-critter (as defined under 18 USC 201(a)(1)) should also be held to this standard.

          And it is a wonder why Congress has to pass a bill to make government employees (including congressional staff and ethics officers) pay their taxes. Since Congress doesn't follow the rules, why should anyone else?

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
         
        icon
        tywebb (profile), Aug 1st, 2012 @ 1:59pm

        Re: Re:

        Sounds like you, Mike, and the rest of the pirate apologists who populate this site want to have it both ways. In this case, movies are valuable enough that they should be treated as an unethical gift because they will undoubtedly corrupt a congressman or his staff. In all other contexts, however, the movie industry makes worthless content that doesn't merit any sort of respect or protection online. So which is it?

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          identicon
          gnudist, Aug 1st, 2012 @ 2:23pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          When did Mike ever say movies are worthless?

          As someone who follows techdirt posts I have never seen anything of the sort said by Mike.

          Or are you talking about some other Mike and not Mike Masnick of techdirt fame?

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            icon
            John Fenderson (profile), Aug 1st, 2012 @ 2:42pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            Yep, and Mike has also never asserted that movies shouldn't have any sort of respect or protection online.

            Tywebb is just being one of the lamer trolls, making things up.

            You know, Techdirt used to have a regular set of critics who, despite being a bit acerbic, actually engaged in discussions without having to lie. Whatever happened to them? The current crop of trolls are just boring, repetitive, and don't foster debate.

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            •  
              icon
              Danny (profile), Aug 1st, 2012 @ 11:07pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              They're the same over on torrent freak.

              I can only assume the lobby's are employing cheaper trolls who have even less brain cells. And anyone with a brain who was on the pro copyright side have been converted by logic.

               

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            icon
            PaulT (profile), Aug 2nd, 2012 @ 12:52am

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            I wonder if this is one of the ACs actually bothering to log in? If it's the usual AC above, he reads and answers the phantom articles he makes up in his head, not the words people actually write.

            If not - tywebb, you seem to be addressing a position that the AC trolls claim exists but doesn't outside of a lying distortion of the truth. Unless you can cite where this was ever claimed by "piracy apologists" here, you're attacking a strawman.

            Feel free to address my, or any other regular commenter's actual positions. My comment history is free for you to peruse should you need to address my words, but citations will be needed if you're going to attack me as supporting piracy.

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          identicon
          Anonymous Coward, Aug 1st, 2012 @ 2:26pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          So I'm a pirate apologist now?!?! You don't even know who I am,... I could be a Senator, for all YOU know!!! I have the level of education as most of them, after all. I pay for my entertainment, if you must know... I'm just all about the fair use... Like using my multimedia system to rip stuff to a central network storage drive, and not have to funnel any $$$ to Redmond WA to do it.

          But it's the Senate RULES that explicitly state no gifts from lobbyists unless it fits an exception. I'm sure that there'll be 25-26 industry persons in attendence. I'm also sure Dodd made sure to slip in that bit about fair market value ($11.50? Not if it's in 3D it's not) as a red herring. And, if a movie is valueless, as you say, why list it as $11.50?? Treating a member of Congress out to a nice little event won't sway them??

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            icon
            ltlw0lf (profile), Aug 1st, 2012 @ 4:18pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            I could be a Senator, for all YOU know!!!

            Not possible. You know too much about tech to be a Senator. A Senator wouldn't know what rip means (other than ripping your pants or ripping paper,) and wouldn't have a clue about central network storage drive or multimedia systems. To them, the internet is a series of tubes which dump-trucks sometimes crash in and cause congestion which means they can't send email.

            You could be an aide, or a member of the Senator's staff...

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          identicon
          gnudist, Aug 1st, 2012 @ 2:27pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          Plus, the movie industry is giving them something they want to be able to deny everyone else.

          Seeing a movie for free. Hence unetical gift from lobbyists.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          identicon
          Anonymous Coward, Aug 1st, 2012 @ 2:32pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          If by valuable you mean they have the power to put a lot of congress people on the same room to be brainwashed for free then yes.

          Would those congress critters get their asses to a another movie with 15 minutes talking about the evils of copyright?

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          Mike Masnick (profile), Aug 1st, 2012 @ 3:33pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          Sounds like you, Mike, and the rest of the pirate apologists who populate this site want to have it both ways. In this case, movies are valuable enough that they should be treated as an unethical gift because they will undoubtedly corrupt a congressman or his staff.

          Not what we said. What we said was that giving a Senator a *ROLE* in a movie that he's obsessed with and which he wants a role in, is giving him a gift, possibly in violation of Senate ethics rules.

          In all other contexts, however, the movie industry makes worthless content that doesn't merit any sort of respect or protection online. So which is it?

          Have never made any such claim, so it's good to see that the best you can do is lie about us. We think many movies are quite valuable. In fact, we've said that many times, and have shown how smart content creators are able to capitalize on that value. But being valuable does not mean that you should have the ability to take away rights of the public just because you can't figure out how to put in place a reasonable business model.

          Figures that you can't actually attack what we say, but rather make up completely fictitious strawmen.

          By the way, who do you work for?

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            identicon
            Anonymous Coward, Aug 1st, 2012 @ 7:45pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            LMAO! Mr. Slimy is changing his tune.

            Let's compare!

            What you said two weeks ago:
            Sure it is. This is a clear gift to Leahy, who's a big fan of Batman and would like to be in those movies. He wasn't hired for his acting chops.

            It violates Senate ethics rules, in that they're providing him with something of value in order to curry favor: http://www.ethics.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/gifts
            You unequivocally said that Senator Leahy had in fact violated Senate ethics rules (without, of course, identifying the actual rules that you think he violated--an analysis you couldn't possibly make without having more facts).

            And now? The tune has changed:
            What we said was that giving a Senator a *ROLE* in a movie that he's obsessed with and which he wants a role in, is giving him a gift, possibly in violation of Senate ethics rules.
            Hello, equivocation!

            Hilarious! Hilarious! Hilarious!

            You: "He definitely violated the rules!"
            Me: "Oh yeah, which ones? And isn't it completely douche-like to state definitively that a U.S. Senator has violated the ethics rules without even knowing which rules you're talking about and without having all the facts? Just sounds like your bitter and trying to discredit him."
            You: "I mean, I mean,,, He possibly violated the rules! That's it!"

            ROFLMAO! Classic yellow journalism, Pirate Mike. Classic. You don't have a fucking clue. It's just discredit, discredit, discredit. The facts and the law don't actually matter to you when you're making those uber-insightful legal analyses of yours.

            Tell us again how copyright law violates the limited times restriction, even though it's settled law that it doesn't! I want a bedtime story! Ooh--tell me the one about how SOPA/PIPA/Operation in our Sites/any enforcement of copyright law in general violates the First Amendment.

            Don't bother with looking at the actual law--we don't need that! Just find some book or article that some extremist wrote that says the same thing. As long as it agrees with you, we don't even need to consider the actual law, right?

            ROFLMAO! Ciao, chubby!
            "He

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            •  
              identicon
              Anonymous Coward, Aug 1st, 2012 @ 8:26pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              I'm starting to think this troll shit is a plant because everyone feeds them so well. And this crowd, if anyone, should really know you don't feed the trolls. It just excites them, they get a chubby, and they keep coming back for more. WTF???

               

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            •  
              icon
              JMT (profile), Aug 2nd, 2012 @ 1:25am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              So you don't think Leahy's gift of movie roles is unethical? Well guess what? We do! I guess the fact that you don't have a problem with this means your ethics are at about the same level as Leahy's.

               

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            •  
              icon
              techflaws (profile), Aug 2nd, 2012 @ 2:12am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              Hilarious! Hilarious! Hilarious!

              You're right. There's no other way to describe the impression you seem to having about winning the discussion. LOL!

               

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            •  
              icon
              Ninja (profile), Aug 2nd, 2012 @ 4:04am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              From the original article:

              Update: By the way, we're hearing that the MPAA hosted a "special screening" of the new Batman movie for members of Congress and their staff. Now, that would normally run afoul of gift giving guidelines... but they worked around that by spending the first 15 minutes "educating members and staff on important issues" (take a guess what those might be).

              And the comment Mike made you refer to is right at the beginning. If memory serves he updated a while after when he found out about the 'educational' part that made it actually abide by the ethic rules so he was right with the knowledge he had before updating. And his current comment is in line with that update, there's a possibility.

              But none of this matters. In my eyes and in the eyes of many Americans it is a gross breach of ethics and one hell of a conflict of interests. Stop dodging the real issues sonny. Mike recognizes his errs and I've seen him apologize more than once for misunderstandings and whatever. You on the other hand has never ever even tried to.

               

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Rapnel (profile), Aug 1st, 2012 @ 1:59pm

      Re:

      Dude: "Your dishonesty is (and I say this honestly) one of the most despicable things I've ever seen on the 'net."

      Seriously?

      You need to click-out.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Milton Freewater, Aug 1st, 2012 @ 5:55pm

        Re: Re:

        "Dude: 'Your dishonesty is (and I say this honestly) one of the most despicable things I've ever seen on the 'net.'"

        Just call us Two Techs, One Dirt

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Aug 1st, 2012 @ 2:24pm

      Re:

      Oh look! Someone was critical of Mike and then the pirate thugs censored the post. Anyone not drinking the Kook-Aid is not invited, huh? Can't stand to even see opposing views? Great stuff! Let's censor the critics! Let's censor the critics! I don't like what someone's saying, so let's make it go away!

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        John Fenderson (profile), Aug 1st, 2012 @ 2:44pm

        Re: Re:

        Criticism and debate are welcome here, but none of the "censored" posts are doing that. By the way, it's an odd sort of censorship when you can still easily see the posts. I don't think you know what the word means.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Aug 1st, 2012 @ 5:17pm

        Re: Re:

        The "someone" in question frequently considers "fuck off and die" as a method for thoughtful debate and criticism. It's not anyone's problem that you think likewise, but most people don't consider the above to be true.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        JMT (profile), Aug 2nd, 2012 @ 1:26am

        Re: Re:

        "Can't stand to even see opposing views?"

        I can see opposing views just fine. Your mouse button broken? Or just too dumb to follow the simple instruction?

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          PaulT (profile), Aug 2nd, 2012 @ 1:39am

          Re: Re: Re:

          Remember, this is the guy who thinks that hiding a comment is censorship, but seizing and taking down a domain name is not. He's living on a different planet to the rest of us.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        techflaws (profile), Aug 2nd, 2012 @ 2:13am

        Re: Re:

        Oh look, a jackass AC claim a reported AND STILL READABLE post is censorship. Cute.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Aug 2nd, 2012 @ 6:47am

        Re: Re:

        We don't censor opposing views, just the idiots who spend their time name calling. If you want to not get flagged all you have to do is stop saying things like fuck off and die and "Freetard"

        Respecting others is the only way to get respect in return.

        Plus, flagging leaves the comment on techdirt for all to read so not the "omg evul sensorshipz" you say it is.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
     
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 1st, 2012 @ 12:41pm

    ENOUGH, MASNICK!

    Damn it all! You Keep conflating your sainted "Congress" with anything that gives a bloody damn about "We The People".

    And don't give me this bs about the 5 people in it that actually seem to care. Acting lessons are cheap.

    When will you finally concede that the US government system (like most government systems) is totally corrupted by greed and totally broken?

    Isn't the huge failure of Obama to accomplish jack for any normal human proof enough? He might be better than Romney (then again, so is a steaming pile of dog turd), but the system was destroyed by greed long ago and even Albert Einstein couldn't fix it (especially by whining)!

    It's well past time to get rid of them ALL, not time to act all naive and hope bought and paid-for subhumans change their stripes.

    IT'S OVER AND IT'S TIME TO CLEAN THE SLATE AND START AGAIN!

    Put you efforts there and stop bitching about how the bad guys have control if you aren't going to do anything about it.

    That isn't going to be fixed by whining about greed to the greedy and naively hoping they'll change their ways!

    Grow a pair and DO something or shut up!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Dreddsnik, Aug 1st, 2012 @ 12:50pm

      Re: ENOUGH, MASNICK!

      " That isn't going to be fixed by whining about greed to the greedy and naively hoping they'll change their ways!

      Grow a pair and DO something or shut up! "

      What, precisely, do you suggest ?
      I'll wait, I'm a 'regular' here.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      The Groove Tiger (profile), Aug 1st, 2012 @ 3:17pm

      Re: ENOUGH, MASNICK!

      False dilemma.

      He could grow a pair, do nothing and shut up.
      He could grow a pair, do something and ALSO shut up.
      He could NOT grow a pair, do something and not shut up.
      He could grow more than a pair, do nothing and not shut up.

      He could also do all of the above sequentially.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      techflaws (profile), Aug 2nd, 2012 @ 2:15am

      Re: ENOUGH, MASNICK!

      Grow a pair and DO something or shut up!

      Or maybe he simply ignores you and does as he damn well pleases. Wanna take a guess what's more likely?

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Ninja (profile), Aug 2nd, 2012 @ 4:36am

      Re: ENOUGH, MASNICK!

      umadbro?

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Andrew D. Todd, Aug 1st, 2012 @ 12:46pm

    Soup Kitchen

    Reminds me of the traditional jeesuus-church mission soup kitchen on skid row. The bums get a free meal, but they have to listen to the hellfire sermon first. Well, skid-row bums are skid-row bums, any way you slice it.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Andrew D. Todd, Aug 1st, 2012 @ 12:48pm

    Soup Kitchen

    Reminds me of the traditional jeesuus-church mission soup kitchen on skid row. The bums get a free meal, but they have to listen to the hellfire sermon first. Well, skid-row bums are skid-row bums, any way you slice it.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      harbingerofdoom (profile), Aug 1st, 2012 @ 1:25pm

      Re: Soup Kitchen

      are you suggesting that everyone who goes to something like this is going to wind up taking what they may have learned and using it to buy a bottle of thunderbird?


      cause, ya know.... i might be interested in that case....

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    wallow-T, Aug 1st, 2012 @ 12:53pm

    What I find fascinating is that, since the SOPA revolt, the pro-copyright pundits have been having a hissy-fit about lobbying efforts from Google and other Internet-oriented firms.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    CaitlinP (profile), Aug 1st, 2012 @ 12:55pm

    And then One Day...

    We'll all be placed in those recall machines for "vacations" and forced to live through a "perfect" life with IP Maximalism and protections.

    Reminds me of Wall-E's Buy n' Large...

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    gorehound (profile), Aug 1st, 2012 @ 1:02pm

    The Government will not be happy until we are all just stupid sheep who look alike and think alike.
    To bad both of the Corrupt Parties can't be thrown out and tarred & feathered.
    And to the MAFIAA Go lick a dog's butt.I will rejoice when I see the day you go extinct.
    Buy & Support the INDIE & Local Art Scenes.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
     
    icon
    tywebb (profile), Aug 1st, 2012 @ 1:15pm

    Yellow Pirate Mike's list of Daily Activities:

    1) Wake up alone on the pullout in his parents' basement
    2) Bash the MPAA
    3) Claim not to support piracy. No really, he's serious.
    4) Mom, meatloaf!
    5) Cry himself to sleep because he is utterly inconsequential outside of his silly blog

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      gnudist, Aug 1st, 2012 @ 1:23pm

      Re: Yellow Pirate Mike's list of Daily Activities:

      Bashing Mike without ever saying anything of substance?

      Par for the course with you trolls

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        Lowestofthekeys (profile), Aug 1st, 2012 @ 1:54pm

        Re: Re: Yellow Pirate Mike's list of Daily Activities:

        That's their MO, while in reality they should actually be bringing some discussion to the table, but heck, they think they have a voice here.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          identicon
          gnudist, Aug 1st, 2012 @ 2:04pm

          Re: Re: Re: Yellow Pirate Mike's list of Daily Activities:

          A lot of it seems to be projection of their own adittudes onto others.



          They think getting something for free leaves no reason to buy despite the fact pirates spend more on media than non pirates. They claim piracy = lost sales despite not looking into WHY people pirate.

          They say Mike times things to make himslf look better and then do it themselves.

          They say Mike spouts bullshit and doesn't back it up all while doing just that.

          They talk about how everyone calls them names while calling Mike names.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            identicon
            Milton Freewater, Aug 1st, 2012 @ 5:56pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re: Yellow Pirate Mike's list of Daily Activities:

            I don't think it's a they, lad. It's one guy paid by the post.

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Aug 1st, 2012 @ 2:04pm

        Re: Re: Yellow Pirate Mike's list of Daily Activities:

        Bashing Mike without ever saying anything of substance?

        Bashing mike without calling him piratemike... thats new

        (/me wishes to have suchs an awsome nickname like piratemike)

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      That One Guy (profile), Aug 1st, 2012 @ 2:18pm

      Re: Yellow Pirate Mike's list of Daily Activities:

      Hmm, sorry, but the fact that you only used ad homs here is really going to hurt your score. Normally you'd get at least 1 point for those, but using only ad homs dings you a point, leaving you with a low:

      0/10

      You need to brush up and work harder next time, who knows, you may even hit 3/10 some day!

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Aug 1st, 2012 @ 11:12pm

      TyWebb's list of Daily Activities:

      1) Wake up alone on the pullout in his parents' basement
      2) Suck the MPAA's collective dick.
      3) Claim not to support anything intelligent.
      4) Mom, meatloaf!
      5) Cry himself to sleep because he is utterly inconsequential since he doesn't even have a blog.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      PaulT (profile), Aug 2nd, 2012 @ 12:58am

      Re: Yellow Pirate Mike's list of Daily Activities:

      tywebb's list of daily activities:

      1) Set up troll login
      2) Bash Mike
      3) Whine when people point out he's a lying asshole
      4) Return to commenting anonymously rather than admit the fact he's a troll with nothing better to do than lie about people
      5) Cry himself to sleep when he realises that lies and attacks don't change reality to save the industries we're trying to point out are failing due to their own actions

      "5) Cry himself to sleep because he is utterly inconsequential outside of his silly blog"

      Oh, and I love this one. If he's so inconsequential, why are you people so obsessed with attacking him?

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Aug 2nd, 2012 @ 1:50am

        Re: Re: Yellow Pirate Mike's list of Daily Activities:

        On the one hand, he's actually done what most shills have refused to do: have a pen name.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      techflaws (profile), Aug 2nd, 2012 @ 2:16am

      Re: Yellow Pirate Mike's list of Daily Activities:

      Cry himself to sleep because he is utterly inconsequential outside of his silly blog

      Unlike you who's not even consquential on his blog. Sucks to be you.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Djski, Aug 1st, 2012 @ 1:26pm

    I know this isn't the place, but shouldn't the tagline be ..

    "Is it real, is it Rekall"

    otherwise I read it as "is this really happening, is he realy recalling a long lost memory." not what it was intended to be "is this really happeneing, or is it just the implanted fake memory"

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 1st, 2012 @ 1:56pm

    "to get around breaking gift giving guidelines, the MPAA includes a special "educational component,""

    So the MPAA is educating congress about the types of laws it wants passed in return for these gifts.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    tywebb (profile), Aug 1st, 2012 @ 2:45pm

    The MPAA is a trade association that represents companies that make movies and television shows. Is it so shocking that part of their education efforts would include screening the content that their members produce? No one on this blog criticizes Google when they let congressional members and staff take a spin in their driverless car or when the Consumer Electronic Association brings staffers out to Vegas to see the new and innovative gadgets that are coming to the market.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Rikuo (profile), Aug 1st, 2012 @ 3:16pm

      Re:

      There's a difference between such things. If a staffer goes to Vegas to see a few gadgets, he's just going to see a few gadgets. He doesn't get to keep them. Same with the driverless car. It's a one-off experience of a physical product.
      Not so with a free movie night. The point of making and selling a movie is that people generally pay to see the movie. You can't call being allowed to see the entire movie a sample, like you would being allowed to sit in a driverless car once or looking at a few gadgets. Same goes for being allowed to cameo in two box office movies, especially when the only ties Leahy has with Batman/Bob Kane/Warner Bros is the fact he's received a ton of lobby money from them and campaigns for laws they want. Would Leahy have been allowed to cameo otherwise? No. Anyone who says yes he would is a fool.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        tywebb (profile), Aug 1st, 2012 @ 5:48pm

        Re: Re:

        So an all expense paid trip to Vegas is okay as long as the staffer doesn't get to keep the gadgets and less corrupting than getting to see a movie for free? I think most reasonable people would disagree. Particularly in light of the fact that the staffer probably gets to watch a free movie on the plane ride there. Getting to sit in the driverless car is something not available to the general public currently. So, again, a perk that a Member of congress or their staff is given to portray Google favorably and no doubt influence their thinking on issues like privacy.

        Mike may not have explicitly said that content is "worthless," but tthe fact that his website is ddicated to criticizing content owners' - whether its for using the DMCA, litigating against websites that are clearly dedicated to solely profiting from piracy, or daring to call Kim Dotcom a crook rather than an innovator, clearly he has no respect for businesses that produce content. He believes they deserve to be subjected to piracy because they don't give away their content for free. Oh, and when was the last time that Mike complimented content owners when they did something to provide consumers more choice, eg ultraviolet, Hulu or the myriad legal platforms that continue to emerge on a weekly basis?

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          identicon
          Milton Freewater, Aug 1st, 2012 @ 6:11pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          "He believes they deserve to be subjected to piracy"

          Wrong x 4

          "Believes" - wrong. He KNOWS that disseminating information without permission is the only thing the Internet does. he knows that laws requiring permission are oppressive, either explicitly or (like SOPA/PIPA) inherently.

          "deserve" - wrong. They ARE dealing with alternative distribution problems because they produce digital goods, which have no value beyond access.

          "Subjected to" - wrong. They DEAL WITH alternative distribution concerns because they distribute digital media. These days, anyone in media has deliberately chosen to go into this business knowing how you make money and how people will access the work you handle. Don't let a couple of bad decisions by a couple of judges fool you into thinking Dumb and Dumber style "So you're saying there's a chance of making this all go away."

          "piracy" - wrong. As David Lowery made clear a month ago, old-school distributors and artists are concerned about ALTERNATIVE ACCESS, their customers' dwindling interest in paying for media by the piece. The legality of what they do instead is irrelevant, and the difference between bootlegging stolen master tapes and making a mix CD is irrelevant to them. The RIAA's recent graphic made that clear.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          identicon
          Anonymous Coward, Aug 1st, 2012 @ 9:14pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          More choice? Most of these choices are region-locked or DRM-laden, and offered, mind you, to legitimate paying customers who don't deserve this sort of restriction. And by all means, use the DMCA, but if you overstep the boundaries of what the DMCA permits you to do, don't be surprised if people are concerned about it.

          Go ahead, though, keep fellating the phallus of the industry that had to be dragged kicking and screaming to the big evil Big Internet.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          drew (profile), Aug 2nd, 2012 @ 2:02am

          Re: Re: Re:

          "Mike may not have explicitly said that...."

          ... but I'm now going to make up a load of conclusions that I've drawn because it fits the conversation in my head and the comment that I want to write.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          Mike Masnick (profile), Aug 2nd, 2012 @ 2:08am

          Re: Re: Re:

          Mike may not have explicitly said that content is "worthless," but tthe fact that his website is ddicated to criticizing content owners' - whether its for using the DMCA, litigating against websites that are clearly dedicated to solely profiting from piracy, or daring to call Kim Dotcom a crook rather than an innovator, clearly he has no respect for businesses that produce content.

          So much wrong in one massive run on sentence. I have tremendous respect for the businesses that produce content, which is why I want them to succeed -- and constantly point them to examples of smarter ways to run their businesses, including examples of success stories.

          I regularly celebrate artists who embrace new business models that make money.

          My issue with the strategy you discuss is that it's *anti-consumer* and does *NOTHING* to actually get people to pay the copyright holders. It's a complete waste of time. I don't talk about them because I "support piracy" but because I support not wasting your time on stupid ideas that make it harder for you to actually make money.

          He believes they deserve to be subjected to piracy because they don't give away their content for free.

          No. I don't believe anyone "deserves to be subjected to piracy." I just know that it exists, and I also know that there are effective strategies to deal with that. The legal strategy does not appear to be one of them.

          Oh, and when was the last time that Mike complimented content owners when they did something to provide consumers more choice, eg ultraviolet, Hulu or the myriad legal platforms that continue to emerge on a weekly basis?

          Hmm. I highlight good examples all the time. I've talked about Hulu, Spotify, Netflix and more. Though I've also highlighted how once those are successful, the industry folks always seek to kill them off, rather than continuing to innovate with them.

          But, it seems, once again, that you've built up an idiot strawman in your head of what you think I've said and what you think I represent. You might want to check your totally wrong assumptions at the door. It will make you seem less foolish.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            icon
            Ninja (profile), Aug 2nd, 2012 @ 4:40am

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            Fast-forward 20 years and he'll still be whining about piracy and the good old days. Though I must admit he innovated by registering and using a registered user.

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            icon
            martyburns (profile), Aug 2nd, 2012 @ 4:56am

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            OMG Mike! I knew it! My clever arse has finally managed to get you to admit it!!!!

            My issue with the strategy you discuss is that it's *anti-consumer* and does *NOTHING* to actually get people to pay the copyright holders. It's a complete waste of time. I don't talk about them because I "SUPPORT PIRACY" but because I support not wasting your time on stupid ideas that make it harder for you to actually make money.

            A direct quote from Pirate Mike himself that proves my inane rantings were right all along!

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          techflaws (profile), Aug 2nd, 2012 @ 2:21am

          Re: Re: Re:

          when was the last time that Mike complimented content owners when they did something to provide consumers more choice, eg ultraviolet

          That tidbit alone proves you're full of shit. DRM offers NO benefit to the consumer, ever.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Aug 1st, 2012 @ 11:13pm

      Re:

      "The MPAA is a trade association that represents companies that make movies and television shows. Is it so shocking that part of their education efforts would include screening the content that their members produce?"

      What was the last film the MPAA itself (not a member studio like Time-Warner or Viacom) screened?

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      techflaws (profile), Aug 2nd, 2012 @ 2:18am

      Re:

      Analogy fail. Maybe you should be getting back to pointlessly bashing Mike.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Cosmicrat, Aug 1st, 2012 @ 5:00pm

    A bit petty

    In actuality, I doubt any congressperson or their family members gives a rat's ass about the dollar value of this "gift" of free movie admission. They are well off relative to the rest of us and if I'm not mistaken also get an "allowance" for entertainment whenever they are residing in DC.

    What is relevant is that this is just another thinly disguised lobbying function, a meet and greet with industry reps who will undoubtedly advance their causes. Also, the fact that Leahy was offered a high profile cameo role as a reward for his legislating probably violates no rules, but still points out how cynical and elitist this system is.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 1st, 2012 @ 5:54pm

    It seems Hollywood has come up with the best Anti-Piracy plan ever. Simply make movies nobody wants. Piracy problem solved. See Hollywood you did it without new laws. Congrts.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 1st, 2012 @ 6:45pm

    What is real? What is recall? What is redundant? What a joke!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Wally (profile), Aug 1st, 2012 @ 8:41pm

      Re:

      Arnold Schwarzenegger starred in the original Total Recall. It was a fairly good action flick about a guy getting caught up in an implanted memory of being a spy on Mars and has everyone after him. It's a great psychological action thriller that is one of my personal favorite films. There are prophetic human mutants (one of them has three boobs).

      Of all the reboots I've seen, Total Recall 2012 will be the biggest disappointment.

      As for Rekall, don't go to that place. A good friend of mine nearly got lobotomized after the procedure...

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Wally (profile), Aug 1st, 2012 @ 8:27pm

    I find it ironic....

    ....that the MPAA would show a screening on an unoriginal concept of a movie that the 2012 release of the Total Recal reboot is just to show the importance of intellectual property.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 1st, 2012 @ 11:24pm

    I can't imagine why any of this would get you upset.

    Plenty of industries have receptions for politicians, and display their products and pump why they are good for the economy. You may not like it, but movies are big business, employ a lot of people, and have plenty of echos in the economy. Are you suggesting that they shouldn't be allowed to do what every other company in the US has the right to do?

    Stop whining Mike. It takes away from your (weak) message.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Wally (profile), Aug 2nd, 2012 @ 12:23am

      Re:

      "Plenty of industries have receptions for politicians, and display their products and pump why they are good for the economy. You may not like it, but movies are big business, employ a lot of people, and have plenty of echos in the economy."

      Oh that's what Obamma says about Job Creation. Very few average joe full time job people work on set.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Aug 2nd, 2012 @ 1:09am

        Re: Re:

        Wally, first, try not to make it partisan. Makes you look weak.

        Second, read my post again. They employ a lot of people. I didn't say "on set". Mike has put up the numbers before, even his narrow interpretation still came off with tens of thousands of jobs and billions of dollars of economic activity.

        Do you think they should be denied the same rights that everyone else does, just because they are an "IP" business? That's what Mike thinks.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      drew (profile), Aug 2nd, 2012 @ 2:11am

      Re:

      Started with a good point, then cheapened it with a limp dig at the end.

      To address your point: no, I agree with you, they should have the rights to what other industries do.
      But it should be recognised as lobbying and recorded as such - and yes, this should be the case for every industry.
      And then the rules should be enforced.

      Please keep the debate coming, but please lay off with the unnecessary digs.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      techflaws (profile), Aug 2nd, 2012 @ 2:22am

      Re:

      Stop whining Mike. It takes away from your (weak) message.

      No he/it doesn't.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Lennart Regebro, Aug 2nd, 2012 @ 1:31am

    Well, fair enough, they get to show educational content before.

    Do we get to do that as well? Can we show them "RIP A remix Manifesto" for example? http://ripremix.com/

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 3rd, 2012 @ 3:39pm

    You DO realize the "educational" component of these meetings was an icepick through the eyeball (left or right we let YOU choose...because we aren't monsters™) then you simply swirl the icepick around the frontal lobes until the statistics used by the RIAA and MPAA make complete sense.

    JOIN US.....it's BLIIIIISSSSSSS....

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 3rd, 2012 @ 3:42pm

    To be honest they probably got people into a DARK cinema, then asked them to sign a (folded) piece of paper claiming it was just a declaration that they didn't have any video cameras on them.......


    MUHAHHAHAHAHAH

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 4th, 2012 @ 6:59am

    Without Arnold getting his a** to Mars, no, it's not Recall.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Save me a cookie
  • Note: A CRLF will be replaced by a break tag (<br>), all other allowable HTML will remain intact
  • Allowed HTML Tags: <b> <i> <a> <em> <br> <strong> <blockquote> <hr> <tt>
Follow Techdirt
A word from our sponsors...
Essential Reading
Techdirt Reading List
Techdirt Insider Chat
A word from our sponsors...
Recent Stories
A word from our sponsors...

Close

Email This