MPAA praises ICE domain seizures, supports tougher penalties

vbimport

#1

MPAA praises ICE domain seizures, supports tougher penalties.

[newsimage]http://static.rankone.nl/images_posts/2011/03/biBFkc.jpg[/newsimage]The Motion Picture Association (MPAA) and other film industry groups spoke out this week, praising the US Department of Homeland Security (DHS) for their Operation in Our Sites initiative, in which the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agency seizes domains suspected of copyright infringement without any warning or due process.


Read the full article here: [http://www.myce.com/news/mpaa-praises-ice-domain-seizures-supports-tougher-penalties-42375/](http://www.myce.com/news/mpaa-praises-ice-domain-seizures-supports-tougher-penalties-42375/)


Please note that the reactions from the complete site will be synched below.

#2

"“Operation in Our Sites has not only put illegal sites out of business, but has raised public awareness about this specific form of crime on the Internet,” the letter stated. “Most importantly, these enforcement efforts have resulted in most of these entities ceasing their illegal activity.”
April Fools! … the idiot that said that … not the article.

Suggesting that any site seizures has caused any dent in piracy is absolutely ludicrous - he’s either april fooling us, or (more likely) he’s a fool.
Just to start with … any site admins that have any dubious sites backup their sites, at the least, if not have another mirror site as backup.
Secondly, nearly any pirate files/links to pirate files are duplicated on multiple sites across the internet.

Despite googles insistence that it’s filtering torrent’s from it’s search results, a quick copy and paste of a hash or description of a torrent will spit out hundreds of results from hundreds of different sites … most outside the regulatory powers of the USA.

At any rate, harsher penalties are not warranted. More effective enforcement would perhaps be forgiven, even if the actions are misguided. More effective marketting, lower prices, removal of DRM and provision of products in an easily consumable product will create and maintain the market required - if consumers found their products to be value for money, they’d already be there buying in the marketplace, and not pirating.
Anyone that pirates cheap, non-DRM’d, easily accessible content in the format that they choose, would never have paid for the product anyway.

It’s not a lost sale - it’s an opportunity for improvement.


#3

In this instance I think the MPAA is right… as long as due diligence is not followed the courts will eventually overturn all of the seizures and the MPAA will lose. You would think that they would have better sense by now, but apparently not.


#4

Someone who has had their site taken by these pr!cks, please for the love of god, sue the piss out of these arrogant a$$holes. Not only are they ignoring Constitutional Law, they are ignoring Due Process. This is not the road that America needs to be moving down. I only wonder if Aaron Burr was still alive how many Congresspeople he would have shot down like Hamilton? I’m one stupid law from going nuts on these Fascists. When I hear someone tell me they are a Republican, I ask, “How does it feel to hate your country and freedom?”


#5

[QUOTE=iamrocket;2582533] You would think that they would have better sense by now, but apparently not.[/QUOTE]

Actually, politicians have historically been very slow to learn anything, and apperantly this is only reflected when they are up for election and very little then. There is a very simple solution to this problem. The sites that allow people to store files, and provide search engines just need to form a lobbying group, ask for donations and making bribes, excuse me, “Political Contributions” the the politicians in congress and this will go away. This is the same game the MPAA and other industry groups are playing with the US.
Unfortunately, this only perpetuates the corruption and you have to continue to pay them to get them to do anything. The new head of the MPAA, Chris Dodd, knows this game well. He, as you should know, served as Chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, received prferential mortgage rates from Countrywide Mortgage ( an obvoius conflict of interest) and served on several influntial Committies and Sub-Commities that were very influential in the Housing and Banking Crisis. He is on video insisting there was nothing wrong with Fannie Mae, while receiving millions in contributions from Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and other loan companies who were neck deep in the banking failure. Perhaps people should take a closer look at who is doing what, rather than just listening to what they are saying. I think they will find people in both parties are involved in this mess, although the hearings in the year before the colapse are very enlightning.
And Trust2112, Mr. Morton was appointed by and serves at the pleasure of the President of The United States, President Obama, who as you might remember is a DEMOCRAT, not a Republican. This is an Obama Administration policy, and if President Obama wasn;t for it, it wouldn;t be happening. Look at who the MPAA gives their money to, they heavily favor Democrats…

Personally, as I have stated several times, I think most of the are corrupt and don’t wok in the interest of the counrty, but only for money.


#6

[QUOTE=Drum;2582953]Personally, as I have stated several times, I think most of the are corrupt and don’t wok in the interest of the counrty, but only for money.[/QUOTE]
Methinks interested parties only sponsor the marketting/polling campaigns of “friendly” politicians which have policies that align with their own interests :iagree:

If the general population begins sponsoring the polling/marketing campaigns of politicians that have policies supporting the general populations interests … then the general population will have their knights in shining armour.

Legislate a limitation on the $$$$ that politicians can spend on their campaigns, and the common interest might have a fighting chance.


#7

I agree to an extent. For the most part, most, not all, members of congress will do whatever you ask of them if you have the money and a scheme to get it to them. I would love to see just how little it would take. Unfortunately the current laws allow someone with billions of dollars to create several organizations to support candidates directly and indirectly. I see no reason why any organization or company should have to right to donate to a political campeign at all, they don’t have the right to vote so why are they allowed to contribute. It is just another way to game the system, and bribe the politicians to do your bidding. It literly happens all the time, all you have to do is compare donations with leglislation introduced to see it, although not all of it. Man meets congressman at party gives check for $10K to PAC, following Tesday, congressman introduces bill to prohibit govt agency from competing with man’s website, following weekend at another party, man gives congressman another check for $10K.

Should there be limits on campeign spending? I think so, certainly after the last presidential election. But there should be donation limits, in my opinion. Only registered votors should be allowed to contribute and the limit should be low enough that EVERY registered votor (even the poorist) can give the max. No more than $100 in my opinion, no bundeling, and that is $100 per person, per year TOTAL POLITICAL CONTRIBUTIONS. Every one must have a valid Name, Address, SSN and Voter ID number for the state they live in. Personally, I think the IRS should be the ones to receive all the checks rather than the candidates themselves, but that is a streach. Limiting contributions will reduce the bribery and corruption, or at least make it easier to find.

Unfortunately, these things will take a constitutional amendment to impliment, you can’t pass laws to effectivly restrict congress from anything, they make them go away very quickly and quietly.

Those that remember “ABSCAM” know how easy it is, and how much they (congress) have learned from that and other “Stings” by the FBI. Part of the problem is congress set’s the FBI’s budget. Too much investigation and Congress cuts their budget. Also remember Heads of agencies, like the FBI are “Appointed by, and server at the pleasure of the President”. That means they support the Presidents agenda or they “resign”. Of course no one is appointed if the president and cabinet aren’t absolutly positive they will tow the line, at all costs.


#8

F**k the MPAA and RIAA!!


#9

[QUOTE=zrdb;2583061]F**k the MPAA and RIAA!![/QUOTE]

I’m sure you don’t mean that literly, unless you know something about them I don’t. Even though Mr. Dodd is a former congressman, I can’t find any reference to any sex acandals of any kind, just pure greed and a total disregard for any ethics or rules of any kind.

My suggestion is to support any group that works to protect your rights, although it is hard to compete with the lobbying power that kind of money brings. Not to mention the additional power a former congressman with absolutely no morals brings to the fight. Unless people want to sink to their level or worse, the future does not look good for anyone that uses a computer… For anything!