var json_comments = new Array("

$\"user-pic\"$

G.O.B.: Come on!

November 18, 2009 4:53 PM

Moderate | Flag for review

Only after the shitstorm. They only realized that it wasn't their intent \"to limit access to the Internet\" until after they had already done it? Sony and the MPAA, among others, just LOVE getting shat on in the court of public opinion for some reason. They need some therapy.

3 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

P=mv

November 18, 2009 4:53 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@G.O.B.: Come on!: Problem is, their business does not depend on public opinion.

$\"user-pic\"$

November 18, 2009 4:53 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@G.O.B.: Come on!: Fact check: the muni's wifi was for govt use only besides *one* access point, which the town's IT guy gladly closed after getting the C&D letter from the RIAA.

Sony did not \"shut it down\", RIAA did not \"shut it down\", IT guy voluntarily took it offline for one week to let the city check its ass legally. End of story, move it along folks.

$\"user-pic\"$

November 18, 2009 4:53 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

We'll move along when we please.

It may not have been this time, but the \"family\" hands are still dirty. they try to protect thier profits, and downloading shall continue as well. increase action by one will increase the latter.

","

$\"user-pic\"$

Pixelantes Anonymous

November 18, 2009 4:53 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

MPAA didn't shut it down. The town shut it down all by themselves.

4 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

JoshCharlotteNC

November 18, 2009 4:53 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@Pixelantes Anonymous: The town \"voluntarily\" shut it down after receiving a threatening notice from Sony's lawyers.

The alternative to shutting it down would have been for a small town to hire expensive lawyers and expert witnesses to defend the town's right to offer a free wifi service to its citizens.

$\"user-pic\"$

November 18, 2009 4:53 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@Pixelantes Anonymous:

So if I put a gun in your hand and threaten to shoot your mom if you don't shoot your dog, it's your fault that you shot your dog?

They shut down the access point out of fear and/or threats. Fear and/or threats that should not exist.

$\"user-pic\"$

cecilpl

November 18, 2009 4:53 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@Pixelantes Anonymous: I came here to back you up and reiterate that it wasn't news, but halfway through my post I realised I wanted to make a different point.

It is news because it points out the chilling effect of the threatening notices the MPAA and RIAA send out. What happens as the practice of free, city-run, city-wide wifi becomes widespread?

$\"user-pic\"$

rickhamilton620

November 18, 2009 4:53 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@cecilpl: It wont if other towns and cities get spooked bith the \"content industry\" along with cable and telco's freaking out over people not being forced to use their service...

Sad but I kinda belive it'll be true.

","

$\"user-pic\"$

MrHacks

November 18, 2009 4:53 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

Outside of Roland Emerich's 2012, what other films did Sony produce this year?

It would be interesting to know what he downloaded. It probably wasn't that good.

Soul Plane?

5 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

GitEmSteveDave_woot!sOffSoHard

November 18, 2009 4:53 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@MrHacks: It was that movie that if you watch it, 7 days+ later, something bad happens. The Love Guru.

$\"user-pic\"$

November 18, 2009 4:53 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

That was my thought, what could they possibly produce that would be worth downloading.

$\"user-pic\"$

November 18, 2009 4:53 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@MrHacks:
And I keep hearing that 2012 sucked, too. Just a 2 1/2 hour (overly-) long action scene with a poorly fleshed-out cast inserted into said action in a manner not entirely believable.

$\"user-pic\"$

pecan 3.14159265

November 18, 2009 4:53 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@WraithSama: It's a movie about worldwide apocalypse based on Mayan legend (which apparently they don't even go into) and the entire premise is that the Earth's core is heating up. Scorcese, this is not.

Mr. Pi saw it. He said that you really can't go in actually expecting anything except special effects. He says it's entertaining, but not so much in a way that you'll remember a week later. But people want entertainment, and I don't blame them. Sometimes we all need to kick back and not think much.

$\"user-pic\"$

November 18, 2009 4:53 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@pecan 3.14159265: Nothing entertains like watching the end of the world.

$\"user-pic\"$

November 18, 2009 4:53 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@WraithSama: With a story line that banal, it must star Bruce Willis!

$\"user-pic\"$

November 18, 2009 4:53 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@ChuckECheese: John Cusack was the lead. But Woody Harrelson made an appearance.

$\"user-pic\"$

November 18, 2009 4:53 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@MightyDwarf56: john cusack? Nooooooo.

how far he has fallen.

$\"user-pic\"$

November 18, 2009 4:53 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@MightyDwarf56: Bland enough!

","

$\"user-pic\"$

putzinaround

November 18, 2009 4:53 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

the mpaa i took the family to see the new 3d Christmas carol movie on saturday afternoon, it was $55 just for the tickets....also when actors are paid many millions for staring in a movie, im not feeling any sympathy for mpaa or the actors.

and the riaa, sorry, but the memories of paying $20 for a cd for ONE song that i wanted to listen to, guess what, no sympathy for you too.

6 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

November 18, 2009 4:53 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@putzinaround: I got $5 and a free sandwich to be an extra in Rudy

Highlight of my life to that point. Since surpassed.

$\"user-pic\"$

morlo

November 18, 2009 4:53 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@H3ion: More relevant to putzinaround's complaint is the enormous salary a hack like Jim Carry gets, while indeed much talent is neglected. Of course his name is just marketing to sell some extremely threadbare drivel--in 3D!!!--for the benefit of the studio royalty.

$\"user-pic\"$

melloncollie128

November 18, 2009 4:53 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@morlo: Please see \"Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind\", \"Man on the Moon\" and \"The Truman Show\" before commenting on Jim Carrey's ability.

$\"user-pic\"$

GitEmSteveDave_woot!sOffSoHard

November 18, 2009 4:53 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@melloncollie128: Please see the death count he and his girlfriend are racking up before seeing anymore Jim Carrey movies. Any man who says vaccinating your children means you are treating them worse than a dog doesn't deserve consideration of his past works.

$\"user-pic\"$

pecan 3.14159265

November 18, 2009 4:53 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@GitEmSteveDave_woot!sOffSoHard: I haven't seen a Jim Carrey movie since Bruce Almighty, which was mildly entertaining. A lot of people disagree with the hippie environmental stance Leonardo DiCaprio and Matt Damon take as well, so if you boycott their movies on that stance, more power to you.

$\"user-pic\"$

GitEmSteveDave_woot!sOffSoHard

November 18, 2009 4:53 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@pecan 3.14159265: Leo's been environmental for a long time. I had an old Earf Day show with him in from back when I was a Lib.

You can disagree with them, but the active lying McCarthy and Carrey do, after being told the truth, is just dangerous, and WAY different than recycling, IMHO.

$\"user-pic\"$

pecan 3.14159265

November 18, 2009 4:53 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

Well, doesn't the guy who downloaded the movie feel sheepish now? He probably thought no one would ever find out. It's on the internet now!

@putzinaround: I don't really care too much for the MPAA, and actors do get paid an awful lot - but they actually do have a ton of work expenses, and most actors don't make millions. That criminal of the week on your favorite crime procedural probably doesn't make a lot, and those actors who have even smaller roles don't make a lot either. And even those who star in shows may get paid $100,000 an episode, which adds up to a lot - but they also work irregular hours and possibly up to 14 hours a day.

$\"user-pic\"$

Verdant Pine Trees

December 2, 2009 5:23 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

A very late addition to thank you for this point. Most (almost all) people in the Screen Actors Guild make much, much less than $10,000 a year from acting. Aside from movie stars who have made certain areas more difficult for other actors (for instance, the voiceover trade, or the fact that many movies have to be \"sure things\" with big names to get greenlit), I'd save the anger for the studios, who make oodles more money and are happy to screw actors, writers and other people out of their residual rights on things like DVDs.

Barry Williams doesn't get paid anything for those Brady Bunch reruns, you know...

$\"user-pic\"$

H3ion

November 18, 2009 4:53 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@pecan 3.14159265: Most \"actors\" are waiting tables and whatever. There are a few, a very few relatively, who make the serious bucks and even among them, the \"sell by\" date is not that far away.

$\"user-pic\"$

TCama

November 18, 2009 4:53 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@H3ion: What about everyone else? Maybe 3 or 4 actors get top billing in a movie, along with the director and producer, possibly the writers. But hundreds upon hundreds of crew members who maybe, if they're lucky, get a credit at the very end of the reel? The grips? The prop department?

Don't forget that they need to get paid too.

$\"user-pic\"$

pecan 3.14159265

November 18, 2009 4:53 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@H3ion: Yep, and then there are the extras who are sitting at tables, passing people in the halls, etc. They get paid nearly nothing.

$\"user-pic\"$

catastrophegirl chooses not to fly

November 18, 2009 4:53 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@pecan 3.14159265: i dated a guy who was an extra in dead poets society.... it was filmed at a high school and most of the students were too young looking. he was the pizza delivery guy and when showed up with pizza they said \"you wanna make 50 bucks?\" and hired him to come back the next day and walk around in the background or stand around waiting... for about 6 hours.

","","","","","","","

$\"user-pic\"$

H3ion

November 18, 2009 4:53 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

While the MPAA didn't shut down the town's wi-fi, the threat of a lawsuit was enough for the town to capitulate, even though only one possible violation had occurred (not by the town but by one subscriber). The slogan may be \"Equal Justice Under Law\" but some justice is more equal than others depending on the depth of the pockets.

","","","","","

$\"user-pic\"$

November 18, 2009 4:53 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

Ok, I've got a question about copyright infringement for any lawyers out there. Let's say Person A uploads a copyrighted movie to the internet without the copyright owner's permission. Person B then downloads said movie, knowing that it is unlikely that it is an \"official copy\". I know that Person A is guilty of copyright infringement. But, can Person B be charged with anything or sued for anything? If so, what? Receipt of stolen (intellectual) property? Aiding and abetting copyright infringement? Conspiracy to commit copyright infringement? etc.

3 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

November 29, 2009 2:01 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

I would like to know this also. Every single article I've ever read about the infamous lawsuits against individuals the MPAA was doing a few years ago, were specifically against uploaders -- never downloaders.

$\"user-pic\"$

GitEmSteveDave_woot!sOffSoHard

November 18, 2009 4:53 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@Nascar24Dude: Unless the company actually puts the file out there, the only way they know you downloaded it is that they collect the IP addys of anyone sharing it. Most programs you use to DL share the file as you download, which puts you in violation of our old friend here:

$\"user-pic\"$

Gruppa

November 18, 2009 4:53 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@GitEmSteveDave_WantzTaunTaunBag: That's only if you use torrents.

Usenet. The last great untouched wilderness of the internet.

","

$\"user-pic\"$

diasdiem

November 18, 2009 4:53 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

The quickly put the wifi service back up after someone noticed that the letterhead on the legal notice had \"Comcast\" scribbled out and \"MPAA\" written above it black Sharpie.

1 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

rickhamilton620

November 18, 2009 4:53 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@diasdiem: Haha, yep :p

","","","

$\"user-pic\"$

Cant_stop_the_rock

November 18, 2009 4:53 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

Ben, does it make you feel good to write factually inaccurate headlines? Doesn't it make you feel a little dirty? Maybe a little unethical? Don't you feel like you ought to hold yourself to a higher standard, personally and professionally?

4 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

GitEmSteveDave_woot!sOffSoHard

November 18, 2009 4:53 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@Cant_stop_the_rock:

But seriously. Are you saying that the MPAA had NOTHING to do with why the WiFi was shut down? If not for the MPAA notification/threat/actions, the town would have not shut down the WiFi, would they have? So weren't they the catalyst for the WiFi being shut down?

$\"user-pic\"$

Cant_stop_the_rock

November 18, 2009 4:53 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@GitEmSteveDave_woot!sOffSoHard:

In the same way that the FBI warning at the beginning of a movie might cause a person to throw their VCR in the trash out of an overabundance of caution, yes you could say the MPAA was the catalyst that led to the wifi being shut off.

However it was not the MPAA's intention to have the town's single wireless access point shut down. All they do is notify the ISP, the ISP sends the customer a letter telling them they were bad, and that's it. No one ever gets their Internet shut off.

Mock me for taking things literally if you will, but to me it's the intent that matters. Ben intends to deceive people with the headline. He knows it distorts the facts to make the MPAA look worse, that's why he wrote it the way he wrote it. Many of the articles on this site have headlines that distort the facts to make them seem worse than they are. Surely you've noticed that, it comes up in the comments all the time. You don't think there is anything wrong with a pseudo-journalist deliberately misleading people?

$\"user-pic\"$

GitEmSteveDave_WantzTaunTaunBag

November 18, 2009 4:53 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@Cant_stop_the_rock: Yes, there is something wrong with a pseudo-journalist deliberately misleading people. But since Ben ISN'T a Pseudo, but rather, and ACTUAL journalist, he must condense the story down to one sentence, and also make that sentence grab you. By your standards, headline writers could no longer make up works/alter peoples names for the headlines of articles, which even Pulitzer Prize winning newspapers do/pay someone a lot of money to do.

Let's break down the headline:

MPAA Shuts Down Town's Free Muni WiFi Over 1 Download

OK, now what is the story about? It's about how a town shut down it's free municipal WiFi because they were sent a letter threatening them with up to 150k in fines for the single download by the MPAA. So because of the action started by the MPAA, the WiFi was shut down.

So perhaps in some peoples minds, it's misleading, but once you read the story, it makes sense. That's why most people advocate reading more than just the headlines, such as the article it's \"headlining\". Otherwise, you chance developing a false impression of the actual story.

$\"user-pic\"$

Cant_stop_the_rock

November 18, 2009 4:53 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@GitEmSteveDave_WantzTaunTaunBag:

Somehow all of the headlines that are made less accurate for want of space end up making the company that is the subject of the article look worse. It's not that I'm defending these companies; as I've said many times here, why is it necessary to exaggerate when reality is bad enough?

Why write a headline that misleads when you can write a headline that is accurate?

\"Town Shuts Down Wifi Access Point Over MPAA Letter\"

It gets the facts right and is concise. A journalist should be able to write a headline that gets the facts right.

Please don't make any assumptions about \"my standards.\" All you know about my standards is that I don't approve of deliberate attempts to mislead people. Making up words and shortening people's names don't mislead people.

$\"user-pic\"$

November 18, 2009 4:53 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@Cant_stop_the_rock: So constipated with overliteralism; you must crap abacus beads and wipe with graph paper.

The headline is a bit of a tease, like good perfume or something snug on a chick. It gets your attention and draws you into the main event, the \"body\" as they say. It's not the main point, or the whole point.

And the article is factual enough. This is an instance of MPAA's bullying creating a situation in which people felt the need to remove a public service to appease them. Does it really matter who pulled the plug? Blaming the town for shutting off the wifi is like accusing the Poles of aggression in 1944.

**This is my first Godwin in 16 years on the internet. What do y'all think?

$\"user-pic\"$

pecan 3.14159265

November 18, 2009 4:53 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@ChuckECheese: Technically, you did not violate Godwin's law.

$\"user-pic\"$

AnthonyC

November 18, 2009 4:53 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@pecan 3.14159265:

Technically, he has not fulfilled Godwin's law.

So as yet, we are all in violation of it.

","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","

$\"user-pic\"$

November 18, 2009 4:53 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

What do we have here, MPAA shills?

","","","","","","

$\"user-pic\"$

333 (only half evil)

November 18, 2009 4:53 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

I'm glad there's somewhere to get access to the internet when the other two public access points (coffee shop and library) are closed. I can still keep up with the Consumerist when I go home to visit.

","

$\"user-pic\"$

aphi3986

November 18, 2009 4:53 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

Totally random but the building in that picture is on my campus. It's from the University of Colorado in Boulder.

1 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

333 (only half evil)

November 23, 2009 5:31 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@aphi3986: The building in the photo is the Coshocton County court house. Got my marriage license there.

","

$\"user-pic\"$

November 18, 2009 4:53 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

Tsk tsk!

","","","","");