It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

NEWS: MPAA Under Investigation for Illegal NYPD Payoffs

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 23 2005 @ 08:06 AM
link   
The New York post reports that two NYPD officers are under investigation for taking illegal payoffs from the MPAA for busting sellers of pirated DVD material. According to the article, the MPAA would 'tip off' the NYPD on where pirated DVDs were being sold and then would pay the officers several hundred dollars for each bust. The MPAA denies all allegations.
 



www.nypost.com
Two NYPD veterans are being investigated by Internal Affairs for allegedly accepting payoffs from the motion-picture industry to arrest vendors of pirated DVDs, law-enforcement sources told The Post.

Often they would act on tips from investigators with the Motion Picture Association of America, many of whom are former cops, sources said.

There is nothing improper about that practice. But on at least four occasions in Brooklyn, Manhattan and Staten Island, the task force officers arrested the vendors, confiscated the illegal movies and then allegedly received gratuities of several hundred dollars from the MPAA itself or its investigators, the source said.

The MPAA strongly denied that the payoffs came from the trade organization.


Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


Hopefully this will begin the downward spiral of the MPAA and it's Gestapo like activity on downloaders across America. The MPAA claims that with every pirated version of a film that is released in theatres, they lose millions. This is completely untrue. There have been studies that suggest that the MPAA along with the RIAA has seen minimal to no profit loss with internet file sharing and piracy.

This benchmark should set an example for these other mega corporations (RIAA, Microsoft...etc) that they either have to embrace file sharing within innovations in technology, or just be left in the dust.




posted on Apr, 23 2005 @ 08:33 AM
link   
This somewhat caught me by surprise, here is the official MPAA logo:



Anyone notice the 'All seeing eye' across the globe. Or am I just looking too deep into this sort of thing.



posted on Apr, 23 2005 @ 05:19 PM
link   
Hey even President Bush admitted that his assistant illegally downloads music onto the presidents iPod for Georges personal listening pleasure. Copying music and video is here to stay. Paying off the police is nothing new and it wont change a thing.



posted on Apr, 23 2005 @ 05:28 PM
link   
Er, I think that's just a film reel on the globe.
Even if it was an eye, that would still be appropriate to display on a logo for an organization concerned with a medium that heavily involves vision and the sense of sight.

Zip



posted on Apr, 23 2005 @ 09:17 PM
link   
I have zero sympathy for film pirates who get sued.

My only complaint is that the MPAA doesn't target more filesharers. They should absolutely crack down and sue them for every penny they're worth.
The "People are inherently honest, so offer them digital alternatives" arguement doesn't hold any water with me. People just like free stuff, plain and simple. If they can get something without paying for it, they will.

It's stealing, and one need not look any further than the absolutely decimated Hong Kong film industry to see where we're headed.



posted on Apr, 23 2005 @ 09:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by brimstone735
I have zero sympathy for film pirates who get sued.


SO a question for you..

Have you never recorded a movie off of HBO, Starz, or something.. Or never recorded a song off a freind, or tape or something???

I think people are missing the point here.. Movies and Music is just going with the change in times..

in the 80s it was tapes, 90 till now it is CD's and DVD's.. Its just recording things got better and easier, and instead of borrowing a CD off a freind, you get it off some moron on the net.. I know some people dont DL a movie and or a CD and buy it after they have it... But I have DL'ed alot of Movies and about 95% of them I ended up buying..

As for Music, when I used to listen to mainstream bs I would buy CDs, but now I have gotten into rave and techno and such. I would find a song from a paticular band and buy thier music.. Creed, Green Jello, and some older things that I never heard and alot of un realsed things are and can be found on the net.. which is a good thing...

Anyway I dont see a problem with the way things are going cause there are idiots like me in the end who buy the things they DL providing if they like it.

[edit on 4/23/2005 by ThichHeaded]



posted on Apr, 23 2005 @ 10:02 PM
link   
Well I have no sympathy whatsoever for the movie and music industries. They've been ripping people off for years by charging $15 - $20 for a CD on which only one song is good and the rest are crap or on overinflated movie tickets, VHS and DVD prices. The movie industry flourished for decades with absolutely no profits off of home entertainment sales since no technology for it existed. The cat's out of the bag, and there'll never be a technology that people are willing to buy that can't be cracked. If the industry makes fair prices, people will buy, otherwise they'll rip. It's up to them now.

[edit on 4/23/2005 by djohnsto77]



posted on Apr, 23 2005 @ 10:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThichHeaded

Originally posted by brimstone735
I have zero sympathy for film pirates who get sued.


SO a question for you..

Have you never recorded a movie off of HBO, Starz, or something.. Or never recorded a song off a freind, or tape or something???

I think people are missing the point here.. Movies and Music is just going with the change in times..But I have DL'ed alot of Movies and about 95% of them I ended up buying..


Anyway I dont see a problem with the way things are going cause there are idiots like me in the end who buy the things they DL providing if they like it.

[edit on 4/23/2005 by ThichHeaded]


The problem is, I pay for HBO and Starz, and a licensing fee is then paid to the studio who produced the film. Now, I'm sure you actually do purchase the film you earlier downloaded, but many people don't.

The end result of this is, is that the films you enjoy watching will no longer be produced. Or, they'll be made with such a reduced budget, that the product simply won't be any good. If everybody likes horrors movies, and they download those horror movies for free, then the studios won't make horror films anymore, because they're not then turning a profit.

Piracy threatens genre films. Studios will still make money. They'll still produce films, just not films that pirates like to watch.



posted on Apr, 23 2005 @ 10:26 PM
link   
This may seem stupid, but what about the people who cant afford such luxeries as going to the movies? Or those who cant afford to buy a new CD?

I am broke almost 99% of the time. I go to college and all I can really afford is my internet. I cant afford to go see movies, or buy new cds, and there are MANY like me. If I had the money, I would gladly go and pay to see the movie, and of course I have many times. Going to see a movie in a theater is a much better experience then watching some low quality piece of crap on your computer anyways, which sometimes actually mimics the bad experience of the theaters (people walking in front of you, cell phones going off...)


Same thing goes with CDs, if I like an artist, I'd love to support them and buy their CD, unfortunatly I just dont have the money, but once again, if I could I would.

I guess the point Im trying to make is that they are losing absolutely nothing from me, because I dont have the money to go buy a movie ticket or CD anyways. If this kind of stuff wasn't on the internet the only thing that would be different is that I guess Id never get to see that one movie or hear that one song.

Like I said, it may seem stupid, but thats the way I view it.

[edit on 23-4-2005 by PlausibleDeniability]



posted on Apr, 23 2005 @ 10:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by PlausibleDeniability
I guess the point Im trying to make is that they are losing absolutely nothing from me, because I dont have the money to go buy a movie ticket or CD anyways. If this kind of stuff wasn't on the internet the only thing that would be different is that I guess Id never get to see that one movie or hear that one song.

Like I said, it may seem stupid, but thats the way I view it.

[edit on 23-4-2005 by PlausibleDeniability]


And that's why you should be sued for whatever pennies that you have left. If you want a Porsche, are you going to steal one? If you want a Movado a watch, are you going to steal it? It's the same thing.

You want something, so you're gonna take it.



posted on Apr, 23 2005 @ 10:49 PM
link   
If I were to STEAL a porsche and drive happily away then porsche (or the dealer) WOULD lose money.

But thats a while different thing now isn't it. Physical and digital are not the same. The movie industry as well as the music industry are losing nothing because of me. Not one single penny. And they never would have made anything from me anyways if such things were not available.



posted on Apr, 23 2005 @ 10:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by PlausibleDeniability
Physical and digital are not the same.


It doesn't matter. Just because you're a better thief, than you are a consumer, doesn't make it somehow okay. You're still stealing it. You have their product, without actually paying for it. If I own a beach and charge people to sit on it, and you sneak in and sit for free, that's still stealing.
You would still be arrested if I caught you.

In this case, intellectual property is still property.



posted on Apr, 23 2005 @ 11:57 PM
link   
So if I whistle a tune for my personal amusement I'm stealing?
I have the musicians product stored in my mind and I never paid for the right to store it there so does that make me a thief? Like you said intellectual property is
still property.

I'm sorry but if we're talking about non material items and I'm not making a buck from your labor then you have no say in what I do with your intellectual property. I think this whole issue is just the overblown whining of an industry that has gotten fat off of the labor of others and is displeased with having to adjust its business model to the times.



posted on Apr, 24 2005 @ 12:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by boogyman
I think this whole issue is just the overblown whining of an industry that has gotten fat off of the labor of others and is displeased with having to adjust its business model to the times.


On the contrary, the business model in the film studio system is essentially this...

Entire budget = First weekend gross

It's that simple. If less people go see movies during the opening weekend, the smaller the budgets will then become. Across the board. When the budgets get smaller, the quality goes down. It takes anywhere from 15-30 million dollars to properly market a film.

Studios will only net 60% of the revenue from actual the movie theatre grosses. When you factor in backend deals to garner stars and directors, the studios are looking at recieving 40 cents for every dollar made back. They only break even when the film hits DVD.

If you're downloading my movie for free, then you're stealing my intellectual property. You're robbing me of residuals. That means you're stealing money from me, and I don't like people stealing from me.



posted on Apr, 24 2005 @ 02:10 AM
link   
If some1 cant afford to buy/go see something in the first place, how is that a loss to the publisher? Explain to me how these magical non-existent pennies are lost from the studios?
The MPAA's and such whine and whine meanwhile record/movie sales haven't suffered at all.



posted on Apr, 24 2005 @ 02:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by PsykoOps
If some1 cant afford to buy/go see something in the first place, how is that a loss to the publisher? Explain to me how these magical non-existent pennies are lost from the studios?
The MPAA's and such whine and whine meanwhile record/movie sales haven't suffered at all.


Again, the arguement of "Well, I don't normally pay, so I'm not really stealing" is nonsensical at best.

They're stealing, so they should at least have the common courtesy to admit that they're stealing, instead of rationalizing their actions to justify it in their heads. If they can't afford to buy or go see something, then they probably shouldn't buy or or see it until they can.

That's why it's considered a luxury.

People who steal movies from the internet are selfish, overgrown, petulant children, frothing and foaming at the mouth, demanding instant gratification as though it were a teat to suck on. They crave immediate satisfaction at the touch of their fingertips, like so much Nero Caeser.

Most people practice something called capitalism. The exchanging of goods and services for money. They're practicing something called larceny.



posted on Apr, 24 2005 @ 07:41 AM
link   
I personally could care less about the corporate interest of the MPAA.

When I was back home in the states this past February I checked out a couple of movies. Now what appals me is that even though we pay the $8.50 Movie ticket and purchase the $5.00 bag of popcorn we have to sit through commercials before the movie begins, commercials!. I'm not talking about movie trailers; I'm referring to Pontiac advertisements, HP commercials. You would think that since you are paying to watch a movie, you wouldn't have to pay to watch television ads also. I can sit home and do that on a Saturday night. The MPAA has been getting the best of us for years, it's time that the consumer make it even.



posted on Apr, 24 2005 @ 09:48 AM
link   
'stealing' a digital song is not the same as stealing a porsche. what it is the same is, is looking at a porsche in detail, then getting scrap parts and paints, and building an exact replica of the porsche yourself, piece by piece for personal use only or for other people to build replicas of. that is not illegal.

when downloading a song over p2p networks, the internet or whatever medium you choose, you are using software to examine the song then reconstruct it on your computer, an exact replica, electron by electron. is that stealing?



posted on Apr, 24 2005 @ 10:05 AM
link   


The problem is, I pay for HBO and Starz, and a licensing fee is then paid to the studio who produced the film. Now, I'm sure you actually do purchase the film you earlier downloaded, but many people don't.


I pay for internet service how is that any different(other then the people getting the payola)

I have no sympathy for the RIAA, MPAA et al. They are a bunch of spinless jerks who will be the first against the wall when the revolution comes! Bittorrent is here to stay, if the RIAA and MPAA continue to sue filesharers they will alienate there constomer base.

Technology is thier friends, if only they could figure out a way to ADAPT they will be fine, but if they continue this knee-jerk reactionary approach they are digging thier own graves... They cannot sue every file-sharer ...

longtail.typepad.com...

As this link say everything except Movies, Net and Video Games are shrinking and sharing is not to blame.

I guess everyone needs a Boogieman to blame all their problems on these days



posted on Apr, 24 2005 @ 10:08 AM
link   
If times are so drastic why has the movie industry managed to spend an ever increasing amount of money on movies. Movies are being made with unprecedently high budgets. Yet here we are least twenty years after the advent of video tape and vcrs. If piracy causes so much damage to the film industry why wasnt the film industry wiped out with the advent of video tape?
The film industry has done the exact opposite of colapse under pressure, if anything its expanded and thrived.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join