4chan DDoS Takes Down MPAA and Anti-Piracy Websites.

[fustercluck]

4chan is like the mafia.

Maybe closer to the Tea Party, a teenage version.

MPAA and Anti-Piracy can suck it, but 4chan isn't the most stable group of individuals.

 

[edro]

I don't get why 4chan gets a bad reputation.

Why don't you have a seat over there. Chris Hanson will explain it to you.

 

[Ninjahedge]

IF this is true, then I like what happened.

The problem being what someone else here said, they are both wrong, and although I like what happened, nothing has changed.

What will be the result? More lawsuits and higher movie and CD prices ass the MPAA and RIAA call in their Lawyer Dawgs to hunt them some scapegoats.

The sad thing is this. If they charged $5 for a CD, including jewel case and printed sleeve, most people would not have any problem shelling that out. Hell, they are willing to pay more per month for frigging Texting, why would $5 a CD bug them?

But that would not reduce piracy enough to warrant the lost revenue. They can spend MILLIONS on lawsuits, investigation, DRM development and the whole 9 yards and STILL make more money than reducing their costs to something more universally managable.

Why reduce a DVD to $12 with no forced commercials when they make a HELL of a lot more money charging "special" prices of $19.95 and placing a Taco Bell, Burger King and Coca Cola commercial at the start (along with "Special Previews" of other great titles!!!!!).

Since when does making a Blue Ray cost so much more than a DVD? 5 years ago?

Also, in a land where price fixing and collusion are illegal, it is AMAZING that every single CD ever made by anyone comes in within PENNIES of each other no matter who is on it, how long the CD is, or how good the damn thing actually is.

Yeah, they all cost the same to make.

 

[Bignate603]

While I understand that businesses do need to try and control piracy the methods that the RIAA and MPAA don't match the offense. A single illegal song shouldn't be worth thousands and thousands of fines.

 

[edro]

While I understand that businesses do need to try and control piracy the methods that the RIAA and MPAA don't match the offense. A single illegal song shouldn't be worth thousands and thousands of fines.

They seek huge fines to bully you into a settlement and make an example of how "serious" the crime is. I doubt they ever have received full compensation on any case.

 

[AMDZen]

Hmm never been to /b/ have you?

On the contrary, that forum is the epitome of what I'm talking about. What is more free then a place without rules?

4chan is kind of like America at the beginning, while the haters are the Europeans calling everyone godless heathens.

 

[Ninjahedge]

While I understand that businesses do need to try and control piracy the methods that the RIAA and MPAA don't match the offense. A single illegal song shouldn't be worth thousands and thousands of fines.

Make it a standard. Something like "Double cost".

That will not STOP piracy, but it may discourage it a bit. Would you download EVERY song you MIGHT listen to if there was a good chance you would be fined 2X for something you don't like, or would you stick to what you like?

That is another problem with these Piracy figures. How many of the songs and other things downloaded are actaully watched, played or listened to? (There is a song out, by I forget who, that basically says "I have 30,000 songs on my Ipod that I don't even listen to", it also says that they know all the lines to Donnie Darko..... I can't remember the artist)...

If we got some realistic numbers, I believe you would see that the MPAA and RIAA are not "losing" as much as they say. If they just made it SUBSTANTIALLY cheaper to DL a good song, rather than charging as much as they do inthe store, you would see alot less of this......

 

[JSt0rm]

Sell it at a good price, in a format people want, without DRM. There will always be piracy, so there's no point in worrying about that. Take care of your customers, and they'll take care of you.

Whats a good price? When you spend 100 million on a film? How much should you get back and how long should it take? In my part of the film industry to get myself and other sound professionals to work on a normal film its 50k a week for about 4 months. Sometimes more. We certainly aren't the rich upper crust just professionals doing the best work we can. This isn't music, you don't just have 5 people working for 6 months you have hundreds of people working for a few years. How will there be content in the future if most film loses money?

AND - listen closely cause this is the important part - make the content WORTH PAYING FOR. I won't even pirate a shitty movie, what makes you think I'd pay for it?

I agree if a film is crappy it is crappy. But I've found that most film has a value in something. Is it the most amazing thing you have ever seen and will impact your life forever? Some films are that but most aren't and they aren't intended to be that. Whats the bar for enjoyment? Some horribly shitty films are camp classics. Do they deserve to make money?

I used to not really think about this stuff and for music I honestly think the new way IS better because you have so many more artists participating in the game and I feel thats good for art. But in film you have so many people working for so long on a product and if it is just stolen then it has no value and then it will take no time at all to not have film. It will disappear.

Look back over all the indie films you enjoy, I bet most of them were made between 2001 and 2008 - that was like a golden age for American indie films. Today there are virtually no indie studios left. They have either been bought by the majors or they have gone out of business. The effects of people wanting free content or movies for $1 have had a immediate and chilling effect on the industry.

It's not up to any of you to make sure this industry survives. Hell I bet the majority of you dont even care. But know that this "race to the bottom" will hit every single industry left in this country and I'm sure that will effect all of you.

Maybe try to enjoy going to a theater this weekend. It actually can be a fun experience even if its not some huge blockbuster. A lot of people work really hard to make sure it looks and sounds great in that enviroment.

 

[AMDZen]

 

[Judgement]

oh the lulz

 

[Ninjahedge]

Jstorm, I partially agree, but you may be missing some points (and I may be hitting the wrong fliks as examples).

Was it 12 monkeys that Bruce Willis took just $100K to act in, and a % of the gross? Some movies are MADE with the right actors, and some are simply SOLD by having a name attached (The action and chick fliks are the worst with this. Renee Zelweiger and Arnold Schwartzeneger star in "To Kill a First Date".)

There is a sweet spot between an indie and a production that comes up every so often. Guys like Tarrantino (maybe it was Pulp that Bruce took a pay cut for?) hit it, then started milking the Cash Cow. Reservoir Dogs was not a high budget, high price flik, but it is one of the best ones out there. Others like The Professional and True Lies (was that the "Elvis" flik?) went on lower budgets and produced some great work.

The films of old also never cost that much, even by todays standards of inflation, to produce. We have gotten too caught up in too much glitz, glam and gore to concentrate on a good plot, decent actors, and just the right amount of effects to make it "real".

And we do that by the general idiotic public being willing to spend $15 a flik (NYC) to see the latest Owen Wilson Jackie Chan flik.

Yes, they are stupid funny, but they have never been worth $15 per person....


Also, as you have mentioned, the Indies got wiped. Just like Microbrews. The good ones got bought and bastardized, the bad ones faded away. That is not saying that they do not WORK, but just that we are too idiotic, as per the general public, to be able to make more money off a genuinely great performance than off of "Bad Boyz 3, This time they are REALLY mad!!!".

 

[JSt0rm]

Jstorm, I partially agree, but you may be missing some points (and I may be hitting the wrong fliks as examples).

Was it 12 monkeys that Bruce Willis took just $100K to act in, and a % of the gross? Some movies are MADE with the right actors, and some are simply SOLD by having a name attached (The action and chick fliks are the worst with this. Renee Zelweiger and Arnold Schwartzeneger star in "To Kill a First Date".)

It was ok to have films without names in them up until 2 years ago. Now distributors will not purchase a film with no names attached. They refuse to take that chance because the chance of nobody paying to see this film are greater then the chance of profit from the film.

also...

A lot of actors want to be attached to a film and some will work for less if it strategically places them in front of the audience. Look at Machete for a recent example of this.

also...

Big names may attach themselves to a lower budget film for points. If they think that the script is good and it will do well they can make far more then they would make just taking a 5 million contract.

There is a sweet spot between an indie and a production that comes up every so often. Guys like Tarrantino (maybe it was Pulp that Bruce took a pay cut for?) hit it, then started milking the Cash Cow. Reservoir Dogs was not a high budget, high price flik, but it is one of the best ones out there. Others like The Professional and True Lies (was that the "Elvis" flik?) went on lower budgets and produced some great work.

Tarantino wrote and sold "true romance" before he made dogs. Both are great films. No disputing this fact. But selling a screenplay into the system is the first step for a writer/director. The fact that it turned out amazing put him on the trajectory he is on today and his incredible talent has maintained that.

The films of old also never cost that much, even by todays standards of inflation, to produce. We have gotten too caught up in too much glitz, glam and gore to concentrate on a good plot, decent actors, and just the right amount of effects to make it "real".

The films of old had 1 mono sound channel, no special effects, no color correction, 1 delivery format AND they were the only game in town. If you wanted to see a moving picture it was the only option.

And we do that by the general idiotic public being willing to spend $15 a flik (NYC) to see the latest Owen Wilson Jackie Chan flik.

Yes, they are stupid funny, but they have never been worth $15 per person....

And I spent $35 to see toystory 3 at the el capitan. Most would not see value in that but the theater was full. I would say in america movie tickets can be had from $7 to around $15 depending on location and time. 3-d has its own costs and if you find value in seeing films like that then you are going to pay more as they cost more.

Also, as you have mentioned, the Indies got wiped. Just like Microbrews. The good ones got bought and bastardized, the bad ones faded away. That is not saying that they do not WORK, but just that we are too idiotic, as per the general public, to be able to make more money off a genuinely great performance than off of "Bad Boyz 3, This time they are REALLY mad!!!".

We can walk and chew gum at the same time. Meaning there is room for a "bad boyz 3" and a "snow angels" in the entirety of american cinema - as long as those who are interested in either of them dont just steal them.

I've worked on indie films and I've had friends say "oh I saw that. I downloaded it." with a kinda nervous look on their face like they know its wrong.

 

[Wyndru]

lol, I've never seen that before.

 

[Jaepheth]

4chan is just like organized crime Chaos and...

Fixed that for you.

 

[0roo0roo]

Jstorm, I partially agree, but you may be missing some points (and I may be hitting the wrong fliks as examples).

Was it 12 monkeys that Bruce Willis took just $100K to act in, and a % of the gross? Some movies are MADE with the right actors, and some are simply SOLD by having a name attached (The action and chick fliks are the worst with this. Renee Zelweiger and Arnold Schwartzeneger star in "To Kill a First Date".)

There is a sweet spot between an indie and a production that comes up every so often. Guys like Tarrantino (maybe it was Pulp that Bruce took a pay cut for?) hit it, then started milking the Cash Cow. Reservoir Dogs was not a high budget, high price flik, but it is one of the best ones out there. Others like The Professional and True Lies (was that the "Elvis" flik?) went on lower budgets and produced some great work.

The films of old also never cost that much, even by todays standards of inflation, to produce. We have gotten too caught up in too much glitz, glam and gore to concentrate on a good plot, decent actors, and just the right amount of effects to make it "real".

And we do that by the general idiotic public being willing to spend $15 a flik (NYC) to see the latest Owen Wilson Jackie Chan flik.

Yes, they are stupid funny, but they have never been worth $15 per person....


Also, as you have mentioned, the Indies got wiped. Just like Microbrews. The good ones got bought and bastardized, the bad ones faded away. That is not saying that they do not WORK, but just that we are too idiotic, as per the general public, to be able to make more money off a genuinely great performance than off of "Bad Boyz 3, This time they are REALLY mad!!!".

indis like studios are only good as their last film. Many figured that out, and a couple bombs and ur gone without deep pockets to fall back on. Like it or not, the movie going public doesn't support most smaller films with cash.

Past films were no better, in the time before home video videos were spammed out, and even more were before tv, there was no quality control at all, and most are forgotten, which is how nostalgia works, you forget all the cr@p rather conveniently.

small budget means nothing. There are countless smaller films or straight to video dreck you can rent on netflix, most of it is forgetable or pretentious trash. The reality is that its like any other art, most of attempts fail, that is the creative process. small or obscure or cheap does not mean good story, that small or cheap is good is just another form of marketing spin.

 

[0roo0roo]

It was ok to have films without names in them up until 2 years ago. Now distributors will not purchase a film with no names attached. They refuse to take that chance because the chance of nobody paying to see this film are greater then the chance of profit from the film.

Well sorta no, the star power is waning. I mean who the hell are the people in twilight or harry potter or any other franchise these days. Mostly its about the franchise, not the actors who if they tried to go on their own would fail.

We can walk and chew gum at the same time. Meaning there is room for a "bad boyz 3" and a "snow angels" in the entirety of american cinema - as long as those who are interested in either of them dont just steal them.

Its not crap if its worth stealing as they say. so yes. people who whine and don't slap money down to support good films are idiots.



http://pandalabs.pandasecurity.com/4chan-users-organize-ddos-against-mpaa/
law firm email now hax0red