Not sure if this is the proper forum for this thread, but has anyone ever compiled a concise list of the absurdly false claims the big studios have claimed over the years to show the MPAA pattern of behavior?
Here are a couple:
1. Jack Valenti-"I say to you that the VCR is to the American film producer and the American public as the Boston strangler is to the woman home alone."
2. RIAA-"Home Taping is Killing Music" - Analog tape recorders.
3. RIAA-Jason Berman "DAT poses the most significant technological threat the American music industry has ever faced."
4. RIAA-Hilary Rosen-"Diamond's product Rio was destined to undermine the creation of a legitimate digital distribution marketplace" MP3 players
What about DVR's, HDTV, Analog Sunsets, Encrypting Basic Cable Tiers, Selectable Output Controls, blah-blah-blah.
Feel free to add others you are aware of.....I am sure there is much, much more out there you guys remember hearing coming out of the studios. Have fun with this thread assuming it doesnt get locked/deleted.
Maybe we could author a short paper compiling the lies the studios have foisted upon their politicians and send a copy to each of the members who will vote on the latest abomination called SOPA?
Note: 1-4 lifted from "100 years of Big Content fearing technology—in its own words"
Quote:
Originally Posted by joeydrunk /forum/post/21539764
Its absolutly amazing listening to all you guys, :cough: dean, You guys actually think you know what youre talknig about and believe it, but your so wrong. It reminds me of when people were teenagers and thought they knew everything about everything and now years later they look bacck and realize they actually didnt know anything at all. I think its funny people keep bringing up "right out of the downloaders/pirating handbook, I still buy dvds/hddvds/blurays all the time wich I have for 20 years, and I have only started downloading this year. I have never gotten any one of my opinions from pirating sites or downloading forums or what not.
thats like me saying all your opinions come from the mpaa site handbook. you guys need to watch this video.
Cbs viacom/CNET originally tested and distributed and promoted a bunch of this file sharing software and was endorsed by disney, espn, aol, sbs, nbc, cnbc, etc. the list goes on. The law says your allowed to distribute the software but not promote it. The united states supreme court ruled that "one who distributes a deice (torrenting site/file sharing) with the object of promoting its use to infringe copyright is liable for the resulting acts." All of these SOPA/PIPA suporting companys did just that.
Quote:
Richard O'Dwyer is a UK student who the US Justice Department has been seeking to extradite from the UK since May 2011 in relation to alleged copyright infringement on his website TVShack.net. The Southern District Court in New York has charged O'Dwyer with conspiracy to commit copyright infringement and criminal infringement of copyright. Each charge carries a maximum sentence of five years. Richard O'Dwyer lawyers opposed extradition and argued that any criminal prosecution should be brought in the UK, as TVShack was not hosted on American servers. On 13 January 2012, a UK District Judge ruled that O'Dwyer can be extradited to US to face copyright infringement allegations.[1][2] O'Dwyer has the right to appeal, if the order is upheld by the Secretary of State
O'Dwyer was reportedly the administrator of the website TVShack, via the domain names TVShack.net and TVShack.cc.[3] According to the Manhattan US Attorney Office TVShack was a "linking website", providing "access or links to other websites where pirated movies and television programs are stored."[4] He is reported to have shut down TVShack the day he was visited by UK police at his student accommodation in Sheffield in November 2010.[5]
Our country has turned into the gestapo or something. What right do we have to charge someone of breaking a law in a different country, its ludicrous. Especially when he isnt even breakimg a law in his own country.(even if.he is it shouldnt make a diference,) would you go across the street and punish your neighbirs kids neighbors for doing simethimg their oatents allowed them to do. Even if they were do sometbung against tbeir.wishes its not yiur right or obligation to intetfere.
On a diferent note, if these record labels or the mpaa etc. were actually owned by the artists themselves or they were actualky im danger of losing their jobs it would be a completly different story, but their not and they arent going to. These artists are.still going to make millions like they have the last 18 years since the internet has been around. They are not in danger at all. Why do you care so much about these huge corporate entities and their endless greed when they would gladly take every last penny from you. Theyve seen this problem happening for years and they comtinue to rip the consumer off, theyve tried little to give a fair realistic altenative to downloading.
There is a fair realistic alternative to downloading. It's called "doing without."
If someone made a teleporting device, and you used it to teleport a Ferrari to your garage without paying for it, it's still stealing. Only an idiot or a thief would say otherwise. The Ferrari dealership is not obligated to give you a "fair realistic alternative" akin to delivering a free or reduced price Ferrari to your driveway.
And if you say you're only copying music, guess what? You can't copy a Ferrari, either, because that infringes on trademark laws.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee Stewart /forum/post/21539837
Yea it is . . . everything. Just imagine your paycheck depends on you winning. Maybe it would mean more to you then it does seeing as how that doesn't appear to be a prerequisite of you earning money.
In business, it's not necessary for everyone else to lose for me to win. The market can support more than one product in any given area generally. It makes for choice for the consumer. For me to 'win' just means getting some sort of payoff that will have made it worth it to give up my entire life for the last decade.
Hollywood thinks Congress is on their leash: Motion Picture Association of
America President Chris Dodd just threatened to cut off Hollywood campaign contributions to any member of Congress who doesn't pass his Internet-censorship legislation.
After Congress shelved the controversial PIPA and SOPA bills, Dodd told Fox News:
"Those who count on quote 'Hollywood' for support need to understand that this industry is watching very carefully who's going to stand up for them when their job is at stake. Don't ask me to write a check for you when you think your job is at risk and then don't pay any attention to me when my job is at stake."
This is so sickening, if this stuff was done in another context you could say it would be considered blackmail, bribery or extortion of services.
Quote:
Originally Posted by joeydrunk /forum/post/21549182
Hollywood thinks Congress is on their leash: Motion Picture Association of
America President Chris Dodd just threatened to cut off Hollywood campaign contributions to any member of Congress who doesn't pass his Internet-censorship legislation.
After Congress shelved the controversial PIPA and SOPA bills, Dodd told Fox News:
"Those who count on quote 'Hollywood' for support need to understand that this industry is watching very carefully who's going to stand up for them when their job is at stake. Don't ask me to write a check for you when you think your job is at risk and then don't pay any attention to me when my job is at stake."
This is so sickening, if this stuff was done in another context you could say it would be considered blackmail, bribery or extortion of services.
Yes I have and in this situation its just plain wrong. I hope your just making fun if what I said because you dont like what i say and dont actually believe thats its all right for people to say/do these things to are lawmakers. If this can happen in a situation with bill your ok with it can happen with one day to one your comoletly against and to a cause about something you actually believe in.
Swiss beatz, alicia keys husband owns or part owns megaupload. Hmm... an artist owns a fileshafing site.
How many of you have ripped dvds to your hard drive? If you have thats.illegal you know. By fair right its not illegal to have it on hard drive but the dmca made it illegal to take the encryption off. So if you do, you did someting illegal to get it there. Its pretry messed up.
Quote:
Originally Posted by joeydrunk /forum/post/21549250
Yes I have and in this situation its just plain wrong. I hope your just making fun if what I said because you dont like what i say and dont actually believe thats its all right for people to say/do these things to are lawmakers. If this can happen in a situation with bill your ok with it can happen with one day to one your comoletly against and to a cause about something you actually believe in.
It is obvious that Hollywood wants what it wants from the Fed. You know this already. So if they aren't going to get it then why would they give the current administration big bucks? What's in it for Hollywood?
This happens ALL THE TIME. It just doesn't get the media's attention like this one did because it was so blantant. I know you are not naive to believe it doesn't happen.
Quote:
Swizz Beatz’s name and title appeared in the now-defunct About Us page, but that’s about the only set-in-ink connection reports show he seems to have to the company. It’s likely that he was listed in recent weeks after the company’s late 2011 redesign, which saw the company partner with major recording artists, presumably for greater exposure. Beatz is not listed in the indictment as holding any share in Megaupload – Dotcom owned 68 percent, and six other non-celebs owned the rest.
My bad, I read that in a few diffrent articles from various sources(not pirating sites) right after it happened, it seemed weird. Thanks.for pointing out the truth.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee Stewart /forum/post/0
It is obvious that Hollywood wants what it wants from the Fed. You know this already. So if they aren't going to get it then why would they give the current administration big bucks? What's in it for Hollywood?
This happens ALL THE TIME. It just doesn't get the media's attention like this one did because it was so blantant. I know you are not naive to believe it doesn't happen.
I know it happens all the time and has been forever but its still sickening. Especially against a cause.i firmly believe in. I also aplaud all of you who are firmly against piracy but are still smart enough to realize these bills are no good.
Quote:
Originally Posted by joeydrunk /forum/post/21549348
I know it happens all the time and has been forever but its still sickening. Especially against a cause.i firmly believe in. I also aplaud all of you who are firmly against piracy but are still smart enough to realize these bills are no good.
I didn't agree they are "no good." I understand like all do that it's the; " World Wide Web" so any laws that are passed have to go beyond the reach of the Continential USA to be truly effective and to have "teeth."
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee Stewart /forum/post/0
I didn't agree they are "no good." I understand like all do that it's the; " World Wide Web" so any laws that are passed have to go beyond the reach of the Continential USA to be truly effective and to have "teeth."
Quote:
Originally Posted by joeydrunk /forum/post/21549348
I know it happens all the time and has been forever but its still sickening. Especially against a cause.i firmly believe in. I also aplaud all of you who are firmly against piracy but are still smart enough to realize these bills are no good.
What's sickening? No one is obligated to contribute money to candidates. It's not like they are stopping doing something they are supposed to be doing. If you say you won't vote for a candidate because he's doing something you don't like is that sickening? You are just not going to give him something you were never obligated to give him to begin with.
If they are giving money, they they are accused of buying votes. If they say they won't give money, they they are being sickening.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dean Roddey /forum/post/0
What's sickening? No one is obligated to contribute money to candidates. It's not like they are stopping doing something they are supposed to be doing. If you say you won't vote for a candidate because he's doing something you don't like is that sickening? You are just not going to give him something you were never obligated to give him to begin with.
If they are giving money, they they are accused of buying votes. If they say they won't give money, they they are being sickening.
Whats sickening is hollywood trying to buy laws(or anybody) and then ex senator dodd, mpaa ceo publicly saying what he did. If a candidate that I didnt like was doing something like this I would say it was sickening.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dean Roddey /forum/post/0
What's sickening? No one is obligated to contribute money to candidates. It's not like they are stopping doing something they are supposed to be doing. If you say you won't vote for a candidate because he's doing something you don't like is that sickening? You are just not going to give him something you were never obligated to give him to begin with.
If they are giving money, they they are accused of buying votes. If they say they won't give money, they they are being sickening.
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Related Threads
?
?
?
?
?
AVS Forum
34M posts
1.5M members
Since 1999
A forum community dedicated to home theater owners and enthusiasts. Come join the discussion about home audio/video, TVs, projectors, screens, receivers, speakers, projects, DIY’s, product reviews, accessories, classifieds, and more!