• MPAA & WGAw fights against Google/Verizion proposal
    65 replies, posted
[url]http://www.boingboing.net/2010/08/14/showbiz-showdown-ove.html[/url] [QUOTE]If you have been following the recent Google/Verizon moves regarding net neutrality, there's even more wonktastic action this week as an interesting Hollywood showdown is developing. This past Thursday, four major creative guilds and the MPAA submitted a joint reply comment to the Federal Communications Commission. This show of solidarity is rare as everyone in Hollywood tries to figure out how to deal with massive revenue losses in the face of copyright infringement. The WGAw then issued their own competing statement taking the opposite position. In the words of Double Rainbow Guy, what does this meeeeeaaann? The fun started in 2007 when it was learned that Comcast had been quietly blocking/throttling BitTorrent traffic on their network. This led to a long legal fight, and ultimately, the proposed changes put together by the FCC. In a nutshell, MPAA, AFTRA, SAG, DGA and IATSE essentially advocate the telco position that reclassifying broadband as a communications service is a bad idea. They believe the telcos will be under less obligation to help in the trade groups' fights against online copyright infringement. The WGAw asserts that loss of net neutrality will potentially reduce the choices consumers have for enjoying the creative output of their guild, ergo, fewer long-term revenue opportunities. A lot of studio execs and producers in town, as well as some members of other unions, are still pretty upset with the WGAw for their striking activities over the past few years, but I'm surprised this has broken down along these lines. Both comments acknowledge the need to deal with infringement, but the WGAw seems to be taking a more balanced stance. The whole issue brings several absolutist positions into conflict. [/QUOTE] MPAA's press release: [url]http://www.mpaa.org/resources/53768dec-c269-4eef-88f9-4ee027bcf181.pdf[/url] WGAw's press release: [url]http://www.wga.org/content/default.aspx?id=4282[/url] my mind is full of fuck
go mpaa
I still hate you MPAA
I don't even
Wow. Props to the mpaa.
Holy shit what, the MPAA fighting for net neutrality? What the fuck is this, corporate opposite day or some shit? [QUOTE=ZekeTwo;24075803]Read that line, they're still being self-serving assfucks.[/QUOTE] All in the name of profit, I see, but it's still hard for me to get my head around this.
Good to see that not everyone is just letting Google roll over them.
My dad works for IATSE, i always thought they were an awesome union.
[quote]In a nutshell, MPAA, AFTRA, SAG, DGA and IATSE essentially advocate the telco position that reclassifying broadband as a communications service is a bad idea. They believe the telcos will be under less obligation to help in the trade groups' fights against online copyright infringement.[/quote] Read that line, they're still being self-serving assfucks.
The MPAA doing something reasonable? The fuck? [editline]08:53PM[/editline] [QUOTE=ZekeTwo;24075803]Read that line, they're still being self-serving assfucks.[/QUOTE] True, but net neutrality with stupid copyright infringement laws is better than no net neutrality at all.
[QUOTE=ZekeTwo;24075803]Read that line, they're still being self-serving assfucks.[/QUOTE] regardless of "creating a copy" it's still stealing
[QUOTE=lil_n00blett;24075811]True, but net neutrality with stupid copyright infringement laws is better than no net neutrality at all.[/QUOTE] They don't want neutrality, they want to be the internet police.
[QUOTE=Armotekma;24075836]regardless of "creating a copy" it's still stealing[/QUOTE] No, it's not stealing. Stealing is taking a product that a company spent money to physically make. Taking gum from a convenience store is stealing. Piracy creates new digital copies and doesn't cost the company any money in reality. [editline]08:56PM[/editline] [QUOTE=ZekeTwo;24075838]They don't want neutrality, they want to be the internet police.[/QUOTE] But if we let net neutrality be violated, we would be even further from battling the stupid copyright infringement laws.
Cool. They actually have money so the government gives a shit about them. Maybe they can get things done.
[QUOTE=lil_n00blett;24075850]No, it's not stealing. Stealing is taking a product that a company spent money to physically make. Taking gum from a convenience store is stealing. Piracy creates new digital copies and doesn't cost the company any money in reality. [editline]08:56PM[/editline] But if we let net neutrality be violated, we would be even further from battling the stupid copyright infringement laws.[/QUOTE] if it isn't stealing there wouldn't be laws attempting to prevent you from "stealing" it. it's stealing even if it's not costing them money.
I don't understand.
[QUOTE=Armotekma;24075938]if it isn't stealing there wouldn't be laws attempting to prevent you from "stealing" it. it's stealing even if it's not costing them money.[/QUOTE] Just because there's a law saying something is something, does not make that thing a different thing. If someone is going to pirate something, if they couldn't pirate it, they probably don't care enough to buy it anyway. So saying pirating is stealing is like saying not buying digital media is stealing. The company loses nothing in both scenarios nor gains anything. Wait, hold on, you're saying it's stealing if they're not losing anything? what
[QUOTE=Armotekma;24075938]if it isn't stealing there wouldn't be laws attempting to prevent you from "stealing" it. it's stealing even if it's not costing them money.[/QUOTE] No, they have laws to prevent you from pirating it because the MPAA is a bunch of rich, powerful, anonymous assfucks who will push around Congress to get their greedy ass-fucking way. Also, [img]http://questioncopyright.org/cm/images/piracy-is-not-theft.jpg[/img]
I'm so confused.. I don't know who to side with.
[QUOTE=helpiminabox;24076097]I'm so confused.. I don't know who to side with.[/QUOTE] Though I don't like them, for now I'm siding with the MPAA. They have money and, at least for right now, are fighting for our mutual interest. They need net neutrality for profit, we need it because, well a non-neutral net would suck. Don't expect this to last though.
This is confusing me. probably because it's late.
[QUOTE=helpiminabox;24076097]I'm so confused.. I don't know who to side with.[/QUOTE] For this one situation only, side with the MPAA. Non-net neutrality will turn the internet into television, and all of your favorite programs like Facepunch will be fucked unless they fork out big money for higher speeds.
That's kind of unexpected coming from the MPAA.
[QUOTE=lil_n00blett;24076178]For this one situation only, side with the MPAA. Net neutrality will turn the internet into television, and all of your favorite programs like Facepunch will be fucked unless they fork out big money for higher speeds.[/QUOTE] I think that's backwards. The Internet today is neutral, the MPAA is fighting to keep it neutral.
Oh boy, take that Google.
[QUOTE=Teal Moose;24076266]I think that's backwards. The Internet today is neutral, the MPAA is fighting to keep it neutral.[/QUOTE] Shit, you're right, fixed it.
First time I like the MPAA.
And the RIAA hasn't said anything?
The MPAA can still go fuck themselves, if they could have their way with the internet, and had the balls like Google\Verizon they would do exactly the same.
What is the reason that Google wants this? I've been out of the loop for a few days.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.