Pirates, beware! Authorities have announced today that they have tracked the first known pirated copy of "The Simpsons Movie" to a 21-year old Australian man, whose home was consequently raided by police. According to Australian Federal Police, the man, heretofore unnamed, has been ordered to appear in a Sydney court in October when he will be formally charged, although details of the likely charge and penalties have not been made public. The Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) industry group said the investigation into the pirated copy involved News Corp.'s Twentieth Century Fox movie studio, Australian police, and the private investigation group Australian Federation Against Copyright Theft (AFACT). According to AFACT, the illegal "Simpsons" copy was recorded by a cell phone in a Sydney cinema on July 26 - hours before its release in most of the world - and uploaded to a video-hosting site based in the US.
"Within 72 hours of making and uploading this unauthorized recording, AFACT had tracked it to other streaming sites and P2P (peer-to-peer) systems, where it had been illegally downloaded in excess of 110,000 times, and in all probability, copied and sold as a pirate DVD all over the world," said AFACT executive director Adrianne Pecotic .
View: Full Story on SiliconValley.com
"Within 72 hours of making and uploading this unauthorized recording, AFACT had tracked it to other streaming sites and P2P (peer-to-peer) systems, where it had been illegally downloaded in excess of 110,000 times, and in all probability, copied and sold as a pirate DVD all over the world," said AFACT executive director Adrianne Pecotic .
View: Full Story on SiliconValley.com
the picture must be horrible, nvm the sound .....
I seriously doubt it was THAT populair lol
the picture must be horrible, nvm the sound .....
I seriously doubt it was THAT populair lol
Because you know what you are talking about, right?
it may not be that crappy.
it may not be that crappy.
ummm yeah thast crappy
Last edited by apple jacks48 on 17 Aug 2007 - 16:04
If you want to go see it, go see it!
If you want to own it go buy it!
Unlike music - it's not like you like one or two songs and don't want to pay for the rest of the filler tracks.
Unlike software that is hundreds to thousands of dollars
If I want to see a movie, I go to the theatre. If I like it, I'm first in line on new release tuesday to buy it. They're reasonably priced. I just don't get it.
If someone has the money to pay for a high-speed connection, they can certainly afford a movie.
... So if I steal a Car from a factory making them - is it then okay in your eyes?
... Of if I steal plans for the car and then make copies of the car myself - is it then okay?
... So if I steal a Car from a factory making them - is it then okay in your eyes?
... Of if I steal plans for the car and then make copies of the car myself - is it then okay?
Either you're still not listening or you just refuse to accept the fact that you're wrong.
If you steal the car from the factory -- you're still stealing from the manufacturer. Stealing a car from the factory would be equivalent to a 0day rls.
If you stole the plans for a car, you are still taking a physical item which there are not exact copies of (there may be other print outs but I mean those specific plans -- there is no exact duplicate).
If you want to relate cars to music, it would be equivalent to you buying a BMW, then making plans from the car that you purchased, and either putting those plans on the internet, or creating a machine that clones your vehicle.
Children, this is PIRACY, not THEFT. It is in regards to COPYright infringement -- which means the person was making copies of something -- not actually physically stealing an item.
I swear to god some of you are so determined on being right you fail to understand simple definitions.
If you want to go see it, go see it!
If you want to own it go buy it!
Unlike music - it's not like you like one or two songs and don't want to pay for the rest of the filler tracks.
Unlike software that is hundreds to thousands of dollars
If I want to see a movie, I go to the theatre. If I like it, I'm first in line on new release tuesday to buy it. They're reasonably priced. I just don't get it.
If someone has the money to pay for a high-speed connection, they can certainly afford a movie.
I'll have to disagree.
It costs about $10 to go see a movie in a theater that you'll watch one time and never see again. It costs about $15 (maybe more, I haven't bought DVD's in ages since they're pointless to waste money on) to buy a DVD version of a movie that you'll watch one time and never open the case again. It makes more sense to buy music than movies. At least with music you listen to it over and over. I can't count how many times I listened to my Puddle of Mudd CD that I paid $13 for, until I lost it. Yet, I've watched my Cars DVD all the way though one time, and never looked at it again.
Software is a legitimate argument. Almost all software is overpriced. Anything worth having is several hundreds to thousands of dollars.
I guess different people have different opinions, but I'll go spend $13 on a music album before I'll go spend $10-15 dollars to watch a movie.
That's like the pirate motto. It's what they tell a judge before they are charged with THEFT because they don't comprehend that word.
When you pirate something and the copyright holder doesn't receive payment they normally would have then they have LOST that money. Get it? Now, if everyone does it then suddenly they have no revenue and then they have ability to make more movies/music/software. Those who play by the rules (pay) allow creativity to continue. Those who don't (pirate) only force up the price that the honest people pay.
come on! hollywood has too much money anyways
if they were a little bit shorter on coke and cash, maybe they even got brighter ideas for new movies
You forgot that most teenagers and students don't have regular salary, broadband is paid by parents and $10 for them looks like significant amount.
Last edited by EJocys on 20 Aug 2007 - 14:49
is that even possible?
Recording using h264, you could get the whole movie in under 200mbs.
Do cell phones regularly record using h264? Ya, didn't think so.
Actually - yes. Unlike the US which is 20 years behind the rest of the world with mobile phone technology; most countries have 3G networks, and those hand sets use and support 3gp compression technologies.
haha! Aint that the truth! US & Canada cellphones are pure crap compared to Japanese/Hong Kong or European models. Hell, in Japan they phones similar to an iPhone already 2 years ago...
In Australia they're already looking at deploying 4G technology in the next couple of years. Hence the reason I laughed about iPhones - we had that kinda stuff 2 years ago - and heck, our population in NZ is only 4million!
i could pay $5000 a ticket and hollywood will still pump out 90% crap.
Here's a tip: don't watch it. If it's crap, by definition you shouldn't want to watch it, whether free or otherwise.
Oops...there goes that much overused argument.
Here's a tip: don't watch it. If it's crap, by definition you shouldn't want to watch it, whether free or otherwise.
Oops...there goes that much overused argument.
That's the entire point of the discussion. How does one KNOW the movie is crap BEFORE coughing up hard earned dollars?
Previews don't acturately reflect the quality of a film. Already on this thread several people stated the Simpson's movie sucked while others stated they loved it. So, how does one like myself know without giving away my money to find out?? If the theaters had a 100% satisfaction guarantee, more people would flock to the theater. But without a guarantee we wait for the $1-$4 rental months from now (total family cost minus soda, popcorn). If the film sucks, I wasted $4 instead of $30-$40 (family).
If someone provided a pirated copy, I would watch it and determine whether it deserved the dvd purchase and/or theater visit. So in my view, pirating only reflects whatever share the industry would have made on a dvd rental. If the movie is good, they will get my money on a dvd purchase or a follow-up theater visit even if I saw a pirated version.
Sure, that's why pirates are distributing DVD quality copies of films, so that discerning users like yourself can "try before you buy". I wasn't born yesterday, and neither were you. People pirate very good films, enjoy them, then don't spend a single cent on that film ever again, whether to see it in the theatre or buy the DVD.
I mean really it would take an amazing amount of integrity to download a DVDSCR or DVDRIP of a film, and then make yourself go out and buy that same film again in roughly the same quality, just so you can do the right thing. Translation: it just doesn't happen.
Nope, logic says quite clearly that people download movies and get free entertainment from something that costs others money to produce and distribute. That is essentially theft. Or to put it slightly more kindly, it's parasitic behavior. Justify it to yourself however you want.
So explain how that differs from the following - which are perfectly legal:
- you go to a bookstore, sit and read the entire book or magazine in the attached coffee shop and not purchase it.
- you go to a friend/relative's house and watch the film and pay no royalties.
- you sit in traffic for 30 minutes not moving and hear the latest cd release from the car next to you and pay no royalties.
- you're at the local chain store and watch the dvd on the display tv's and pay no royalties.
For each, you get free entertainment yet purchase nothing. The only difference is with a pirated download, you can relive the experience and still pay nothing.
Yet, one could always revisit the bookstore, go back to their friend/relative's house, hear the cd playing in another car, or go back to the chain store and also re-live the experience.
So, please claify for us how it's so bad to get free entertainment from a movie yet it not be so bad to get free entertainment from the above examples.
- you go to a bookstore, sit and read the entire book or magazine in the attached coffee shop and not purchase it.
- you go to a friend/relative's house and watch the film and pay no royalties.
- you sit in traffic for 30 minutes not moving and hear the latest cd release from the car next to you and pay no royalties.
- you're at the local chain store and watch the dvd on the display tv's and pay no royalties.
For each, you get free entertainment yet purchase nothing. The only difference is with a pirated download, you can relive the experience and still pay nothing.
Yet, one could always revisit the bookstore, go back to their friend/relative's house, hear the cd playing in another car, or go back to the chain store and also re-live the experience.
So, please claify for us how it's so bad to get free entertainment from a movie yet it not be so bad to get free entertainment from the above examples.
The bookstore, your friend/relative, the radio show and the local chain store has already paid for it. And it all comes back to acting on a parasitic level. Isn't part of going to a theater is like being surprised wether a movie is really that good. I remember when people were going crazy about 300 and I watched it and I still found Gladiator to be a better movie. Does that mean I regret spending that 8$ watching it? Of course not, because the movie is just a part of the experience of going out to a theater. It supports the industry because if you want to watch the movie again, you can't just simply click file > open file > load xx.xx movie but rather to go out there and buy that DVD.
Either you're very easily satisfied and you have a brain the size of a pea or you were watching the wrong film here! lol
Simpsons movie "awesome"? Nah.
u live in the us right?
here (latvia) i would get a dvdrip 2months fasther than be able to see the movie in the theater
It is illegal because you are copying then reproducing copyrighted matieral without the knowledge of the owner
Commenting has either been disabled on this article or you are not logged in. Click here to login or register, its free!
Note: Anonymous commenting is disabled in order to keep the quality of responses to a high standard.