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.”
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.”
Filed Under: congress, education, ip, screenings, total recall, trade negotiations
Companies: mpaa
Comments on “Is This Real? Is This Recall? MPAA Hosts Screening Of Total Recall To 'Educate' Congress On 'Benefits' Of IP Protection”
a total recall remake?
Now with four tits instead of three!
Re: Re:
Four tits for every tat!
Re: Re: Re:
Just in case you guys were wondering whatever happened to that triple-nipple chick: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0619031/
Spoiler: She basically guest-starred in every TV show ever made….
Re: Re: Re: Re:
HAH! She was in Baywatch before Total Recall. Now THAT would have been funny to see 😛
Re: Re: Re: Re:
HA! The guys on Big Bang Theory had a conversation about that character in an episode–mostly about how old and ugly she’d be today. Looks like she held up and turned into quite a cougar, in fact.
I was also amused to see that she played Ensign Sonya Gomez on ST: tng, a fact I’d have thought the BBT guys would have known.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
http://www.hln.be/hln/nl/944/Celebrities/article/detail/1476789/2012/07/27/Hoertje-met-de-drie-borsten-is-nu-succesvolle-journaliste.dhtml
Re: Re:
Our IP laws need a total recall.
Re: Re:
More like No tits since they pushed back the rating
Re: Re:
Have you guys seen the new “3” girl …
http://www.tmz.com/2012/07/19/total-recall-3-boobd-chick-revealed-kaitlyn-leeb/
Re: Re:
As long as it’s lacking Schwarzenegger it’s fine by me.
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
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!
But the MPAA has 5 kids to feed! Think of the children! =P
Re: 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….
Ironic
They’re giving free movies to congressmen to convince them that free movies are bad.
Re: Ironic
The movies aren’t ‘free’, they’re in return for legislation.
Re: Re: Ironic
Agreed. While they may not be asking an admission price now, come later on, when they need just a ‘tiny little favor’ from their good friends…
Re: Ironic
I wonder if they raise the concession fees to cover that… That bag of popcorn will be $1,000 or one signature on this bill to protect our business model. =P
Re: Ironic
What about the corn farmers? If this movie is being shown for free ….
“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?
As proof of piracy being a problem, they are showing how piracy has stolen their writers forcing them to remake a another movie.
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-public-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.
Re: 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.
Re: Re: Re:
Also, “no gift giving” is a rule.
You know, like giving Leahy a role in a batman movie.
Re: 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.
Re: 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.
Re: 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?
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. 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?
Re: 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?
Re: Re: Re:2 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.
Re: Re: Re:3 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.
Re: Re: Re:2 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.
Re: 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??
Re: Re: Re:2 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…
Re: 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.
Re: 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?
Re: 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?
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
LMAO! Mr. Slimy is changing his tune.
Let’s compare!
What you said two weeks ago:
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:
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
Re: Re: Re:3 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???
Re: Re: Re:3 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.
Re: Re: Re:3 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!
Re: Re: Re:3 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.
Re: 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.
Re: 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
Re: 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!
Re: 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.
Re: 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.
Re: 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?
Re: 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.
Re: Re: Re:
Oh look, a jackass AC claim a reported AND STILL READABLE post is censorship. Cute.
Re: 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.
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!
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.
Re: Re: ENOUGH, MASNICK!
“Do something or shut up!” … it would seem to me that shutting up would be an absolutely horrible, no good, very bad thing to do.
I’ll wait with you.
Re: Re: Re: ENOUGH, MASNICK!
1. Do something
2. Shut up
.
.
.
3. New World Order
4. ? Profit ?
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.
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?
Re: ENOUGH, MASNICK!
umadbro?
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.
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.
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….
Re: Re: Soup Kitchen
Well, considering it’s congressional aides, Thunderbird is probably too classy for them. Think “Mad Dog” (Mogen David MD 20/20) or Hurricane Malt Liquor.
Re: Re: Soup Kitchen
Well, considering it’s congressional aides, Thunderbird is probably too classy for them. Think “Mad Dog” (Mogen David MD 20/20) or Hurricane Malt Liquor.
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.
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…
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.
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
Re: Yellow Pirate Mike's list of Daily Activities:
Bashing Mike without ever saying anything of substance?
Par for the course with you trolls
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.
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.
Re: Re: Re:2 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.
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)
Re: Re: Re: Yellow Pirate Mike's list of Daily Activities:
Pirate Anonymous Coward Murder Enabling Ninny.
Or PACMAN for short.
Re: Re: Re:2 Yellow Pirate Mike's list of Daily Activities:
Meant to capitalize the “A” in enAbling.
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!
Re: 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.
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?
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.
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.
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”
“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.
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.
Re: 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.
Re: 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?
Re: 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.
Re: 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.
Re: 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.
Re: 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.
Re: Re: Re:2 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.
Re: Re: Re:2 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!
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
I’m sure PirateMikeShill (PMS for short?) will be along soon to add that his list.
Of course it might be he/she just has a search routine that looks for text strings like that and triggers an automatic comment posting. Which would explain why they rarely have any relevance to the actual point being made in the original post.
Re: Re: Re:4 Re:
“Of course it might be he/she just has a search routine that looks for text strings like that and triggers an automatic comment posting.”
Drew, I have to love your pre-emptive personal attacks and slurs. It’s too bad you can’t use that critical thinking to understand that Mike is shoveling a load of shit at you from time to time.
Re: Re: Re:5 Re:
Pre-emptive? http://www.techdirt.com/search.php?cx=partner-pub-4050006937094082%3Acx0qff-dnm1&cof=FORID%3A9&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=%22pirate+mike%22&eid=&tid=&aid=&searchin=comments
You’re also assuming that I agree with everything Mike writes; I don’t.
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
I support piracy too. SFW?
Re: 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.
Re: 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?
Re: Re:
Analogy fail. Maybe you should be getting back to pointlessly bashing Mike.
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.
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.
What is real? What is recall? What is redundant? What a joke!
Re: 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…
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.
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.
Re: 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.
Re: 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.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
“That’s what Mike thinks”
So you people keep saying. I’ve never seen him say that.
Re: 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.
Re: Re:
Stop whining Mike. It takes away from your (weak) message.
No he/it doesn’t.
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/
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….
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
Without Arnold getting his a** to Mars, no, it’s not Recall.