Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
The Internet Media Movies

The Pirate Bay, Featured in Vanity Fair 300

Posted by Zonk from the everybody's-a-little-bit-famous dept.
koregaonpark writes "Via the TorrentFreak site, an article in the latest issue of Vanity Fair about BitTorrent, movie piracy and The Pirate Bay. The Vanity Fair piece is lengthy, and covers the MPAA's struggle to stamp out piracy, Hollywood's increasing losses, and how the 'heartfelt testimony of Ben Affleck, a man who was paid $12.5 million to star in Gigli,' didn't help one bit. 'Pirates of the Multiplex' covers the saga of Pirate Bay in a very high-level, mass-market fashion. Did you ever think you'd be reading about TPB in Vanity Fair?"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

The Pirate Bay, Featured in Vanity Fair More

The Pirate Bay, Featured in Vanity Fair

Comments Filter:

  • You can't stop commoditizing of an item (Score:5, Insightful)

    by dada21 ( 163177 ) * <adam.dada@gmail.com> on Tuesday February 13, 2007 @12:17PM (#17998232) Homepage Journal
    I appreciate this article because it shows common sense in how the market of distribution operates. Would daddy give his daughter The Little Mermaid on a DVD written with a Sharpie? But that isn't the key element of why "piracy" is good for the market of art creation -- "piracy" is the return of power to everyone, rather than just those who are politically powerful.

    Regardless of what the State tries to do to create monopolies using force, you can't stop the commoditizing of a product. In the case of copyright, the commoditizing isn't the actual movie or song, but the distribution system. For the first few thousand years or so of writing on paper, the distribution mechanism was a tiny industry of copy-writers. Most villages had one Bible as their own written word, and it stayed this way for generations. The printing press blew open the door for people getting their ideas out -- that is all it was about. People wrote to increase their power to attract an audience to pay them for their knowledge. Shakespeare's money didn't come from bookmaking, but from attracting others to his plays. His name was strong because of the press, but his money came from his repeat labor of continuing his work throughout his life. Can you imagine if Shakespeare had copyright to protect his first book, and never returned to the writing desk to continue writing? That's sort of what we're seeing today with the implementation of ridiculous copyright laws -- forced monopolies that give the distribution system more power than the author or the actor.

    After 100 years of copyright really dooming the amateur and the new content creators to obscurity, we're finally seeing distribution move from a coerced monopoly to the masses. We're moving to the day that everyone will have a level playing field in terms of their ability to market their product to the masses -- but no one will be able to "get rich quick" with only a few months or a year of hard work -- if you want continued success, you will have to continue to work. This is how income has always existed -- you work, you find a market/customer, you get paid, you continue to work and the cycle repeats. Copyright has destroyed that cycle for the top tier elite, and thankfully The Pirate Bay and the Internet at large is destroying that State-perversion of the market so we all can have access to the system of distribution -- if we work hard at marketing our product.

    I can't wait to see what happens to the current distribution systems as our preteens and teens hit their 30s and 40s. They've grown up around knowing that information is readily available freely. For a short period of time, artists and producers may get harmed by this fact -- they will see much of their work copied freely without reimbursement. But this means we'll see more artists and producers moving to a repeat-labor market where they work for their dollar -- more concerts, more plays/live productions, more face-time with their fans, etc. You can copy the new Fall Out Boy album for free, but their concerts will cost you $30-$50 a ticket. Why? Because these famous, popular musicians have the opportunity to provide their customers with a unique experience, and the supply of this particular artist does not meet the demand for them -- the price goes up. This is a GOOD THING.

    I'm paying $180 to see Prince in Vegas in March. We love seeing him play live. He made a good decision to go around Universal and the rest of the collusive monopolists in the distribution market -- he plays lives twice a week at his club. He sells it out. Good for him. I see Matthew Broderick and David Hasselhoff have embraced this market too -- instead of just making movies, now they act live in musicals and theater productions -- commanding high ticket prices for the truly scarce product. As I've said before, an artist might spend 3-6 months creating something new and unique, and they hope to make money on it forever without more work. A plumber might spend 3-6 months learning a new task to fix a bathroom sink, but the

    • bravo, well said (Score:5, Insightful)

      by circletimessquare ( 444983 ) <(circletimessquare) (at) (gmail.com)> on Tuesday February 13, 2007 @12:51PM (#17998756) Homepage Journal
      i'd like to also add that the movie experience, the theatre, is still an experience people are willing to pay tickets for. in other words, the DVD aftermarket for movies is obsolete, exactly as you suggest. however, the movie house is not obsolete, as you suggest

      forget the internet for a moment: television was supposed to kill cinema in the 1950s. why is it still alive? why did it in fact boom in growth after the 1950s?

      psychologists have done studies showing that people actually subconsciously like the ooohs and aahs and laughs and startles of their fellow popcorn munchers at a movie. yes, a site like slashdot won't admit to the fact, but people apparently have an enhanced emotional experience in a packed theatre... subconciously

      consciously they won't admit that fact. they will complain about babies and cell phones, but that's what a lot of people do: whine and bitch and moan... and still go to the movies. people whine about greenhouse gases and global warming, but they still get in their cars every day too. people whine. and then forget about it. cest la vie

      look the experience of watching a first run movie at a giant screen surrounded by other people as emotionally enthralled as you. you've never seen it before. everyone else is anonymous to you, their reactions are real and honest. it's almost like church and you're a religious ecstatic: the presence of others and the overwhelming audio/ visual media greatly enhances your enjoyment

      ok, now compare: you're going to sit, alone, in front of a 19 inch monitor, in your basement, with your computer whirring in the background, and watch lord of the rings

      oh joy

      see my point?

      add popcorn. add a friend or two. make it a projector. add a booming sound system. it's stil not the same. really

      every single slashdotter who ever complains about cellphones and babies and loud rude jerks is still going to go to the movie theatre. again and again. i will bet money on it. in fact, their emotionally strong reaction to the ringing cell phone or loud rude jerk in theatre tells you exactly how important the movie theatre experience is to them. they don't want it messed with. people loudly proclaim how they will abandon something the love dearly if they are hurt or wounded. but they always come back, because they still love it

      the cinema isn't going anywhere. look only for future growth. that's a fact

      even if the MPAA magically said tomorrow they were completely abandoning DVDs and releasing all movies for free on line in highest quality the same day as release in theatres. people are still going to flock to movie houses, and movie houses will still grow. point of fact

      so like you talk about prince giving live concerts, or matthew broderick in the producers on broadway: i say to you that the movie house experience is just as much still alive and kicking and unthreatened by bittorrent and just as irreplaceable

      • add popcorn. add a friend or two. make it a projector. add a booming sound system. it's stil not the same. really every single slashdotter who ever complains about cellphones and babies and loud rude jerks is still going to go to the movie theatre. again and again. i will bet money on it.

        I haven't been to a theatre in over a year, literally. I can be disappointed in the crap coming out just as easily at home, and I don't have to pay a shitload for the privilege. In fact, I have discovered that I am not mi

        • i'd say your problem is not with movies, but with people

          therefore your opinion seems to be limited to that of cantankerous shut-ins

          sorry, my offer does not extend to your demographic

          • i'd say your problem is not with movies, but with people therefore your opinion seems to be limited to that of cantankerous shut-ins sorry, my offer does not extend to your demographic

            Ah yes, the ex post facto disclaimer, used by cowards everywhere who, when faced with the truth, refuse to revise their beliefs because it would be inconvenient for them.

            Your argument was that people enjoy the crap that happens when they go to the movie. This may be true of sheep who only live to follow the herd. I honestl

            • And that's a straw man, inferring that only sheeple who watch Disney movies like going to the theater. Clearly, the great unwashed like seeing all sorts of movies in the theaters or we'd be seeing blockbusters going direct-to-DVD by now.

              • If that makes me a cantankerous shut-in, I guess I'll live with that label. But at least I'm not a disney lemming.

                And that's a straw man, inferring that only sheeple who watch Disney movies like going to the theater.

                1. The reader infers. The author implies.
                2. And anyway, it was a reference to the fact that lemmings don't throw themselves off cliffs en masse, they were chased by Disney employees specifically to make them conform to believed behavior for the purpose of a specific film. I guess it was a bit to
            • "i relish your description of me as fringe, and yet i still think for some reason that my fringe behavior should be more important to your opinions than the behavior of people in general"

              okaaay, delicate snowflake. whatever you need to tell yourself in the morning to get out of bed, i'm not going to mess with it

              you're special and unique

              just like everyone else

              (snicker)

              • okaaay, delicate snowflake. whatever you need to tell yourself in the morning to get out of bed, i'm not going to mess with it you're special and unique just like everyone else

                Is it just me, or does anyone else see the irony in this joker quoting fight club to point out my supposed conformity in nonconformity instead of using his imagination and coming up with something new?

                • a great movie

                  and like most social commentary, not actually meant to be lived or worshipped or to be taken so seriously

                  the words i used against you long presages fight club and wasn't even remotely in my mind when i was writing you

                  but far be it for me to doubt your sacred texts, no?

                  go listen to your pixies little angry man and fark off

                  because you're entire index for social separation seems to be just as derivative as what you rail against

                  you're the sheeple dude, you're the derivative consumer demographic

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by StarvingSE ( 875139 )
        Actually, I never go to the theater. I know that doesn't mean other /.ers don't either, but all I'm saying is that I haven't been to a movie since star wars ep III, and neither have any of my friends.

        The reason I did go to star wars is because of what you said: it was an experience. Standing in line with fellow star wars geeks, looking at the costumes, and being able to say "hey, I was there opening day." It was worth the $9.00 for the ticket.

        For any other movie, the $9.00 is just not worth it. For mos

          • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

            by drinkypoo ( 153816 )

            Looks like you are my nemesis in this thread. I shall now go on to dismantle this comment.

            If we look at 2005 and 2006 we can see that the number of tickets sold in 2005 was down 8.9%. It rose only 1.4% in 2006, although the number of movies released was something like 10% greater. Thus there was actually a net loss in tickets sold per film.

            You have presented evidence that, in fact, people are going to see movies less, in an attempt to show that they are going more. Nice work there, sport. Perhaps you shou


        • If you're going to serve alcohol at the theater, don't forget the pizzia: http://www.brewview.com/ [brewview.com] .

          I love that place....

        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          by Wildcat J ( 552122 )

          My suggestion is to have theaters that are 21 and older. This way, the teenie-bopper problem is taken care of, and they can serve alcohol. This way they can lower ticket prices and more than make up for it in bar sales.

          I agree, and in fact there are some theaters doing just that. Check out the Alamo Drafthouse [drafthouse.com]. It started in Austin and seems to be expanding to the rest of Texas (fingers crossed for expansion to Arizona). They don't necessarily play the current blockbusters, but if it's really catching on

      • Exactly. This weekend myself and two housemates each paid £6 each to watch a special screening of Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom at the cinema. We own two copies of it between us and have a projector + big fat sound system. It's not the same. It'll be a long, long time before coinemas lose money.
      • Funny thing... I haven't gone to a theater in around 5 years... I used to go when the re-runs were $2/movie, and went to the $14/movie screens when something was coming up that was a "big screen" experience. Then the $2/movie showings went up to $5, and then $7, and I stopped going to those, and rented the DVD instead, as it was cheaper. Eventually I realised my imagination was way more powerful than a large screen, and stopped going to the "big screen" movies too. I found that it was much more enjoyabl
      • Not everybody enjoys the movie theater experience. For not much money (to me anyway), I can have a nice theater in my home that will last for years if not over a decade where I don't have to deal with cell phones, babies crying and many other nuisances.

        Even the low budget movies with big grass-roots promotion can't make their money back at the theater, so I am incredulous that cutting all DVD income will come to net null result. For several years there, a movie made more money on DVD than it did in the th

    • Let's support this "piracy" for what it really is -- free marketing for talented actors, musicians, writers and producers. When you see something you like, either go and buy it directly from the actor/musician you like (say, on tour or at the theater), or pay to see them live. This is where the market has to go -- let the "pirated" CD/DVD be the advertising, let the official CD/DVD be the way that you compensate them for producing a quality product, and let the live performance be the way they realize a lifetime of income for a lifetime of work.

      While I agree with another poster in this thread that live performances don't work for every sort of copyrighted item that is pirated -- games and applications software being the big ones, I do think that there are sources of revenue that need to be looked at.

      For example, merchandising has been used for years to make money for the studios. How many of you have officially-licensed Star Trek, Star Wars, B5 coffee mugs, t-shirts, costumes, models, toys, books, posters etc.? You've been paying their respecti

    • I sure do! (Score:3, Funny)

      by Stoutlimb ( 143245 )
      "Would daddy give his daughter The Little Mermaid on a DVD written with a Sharpie?"

      I sure do! It helps daddy save up for the pony.

    • Can you imagine if Shakespeare had copyright to protect his first book, and never returned to the writing desk to continue writing? That's sort of what we're seeing today with the implementation of ridiculous copyright laws

      That's EXACTLY what we've seen with today's authors, like Stephen King and Tom Clancy. One book, and they RIDE the huge profits into retirement!

      The copyright concept actually arose during Shakespeare's time. In fact, copyright was quite a bit more onerous in the past, often lasti

      • Re:You can't stop commoditizing of an item (Score:4, Informative)

        by cpt kangarooski ( 3773 ) on Tuesday February 13, 2007 @02:08PM (#18000060) Homepage
        Of course, Shakespeare died in 1616, and the first English copyright laws that had anything to do with authors (as opposed to stationer's copyrights which had more to do with publishers and censorship) didn't arise until 1710. And I don't know where you're getting the idea that there were perpetual copyrights as a fairly ordinary matter. So before you point out the mote in the previous poster's eye, perhaps you should attend to the beam in your own?

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Jeff DeMaagd ( 2015 )
      I thought copyright has been around a lot longer than just a hundred years.

      I don't know of anyone that's started out in any industry that's trying to have a perpetual livable income from just one work. Maybe Stephen King, John Grisham, etc. have enough to live on without writing more books, however, they still continue to write. I really can't think of anyone that is trying to make a living on just one work, so I really don't get your claim on that. Maybe the naive people think that.

      I don't understand ho
    • stop reading after this:

      "piracy" is the return of power to everyone, rather than just those who are politically powerful.


      More exactly, after the phrase "return of power to everyone". Indians would probably call you Walking Eagle.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by dabraun ( 626287 )

      Would daddy give his daughter The Little Mermaid on a DVD written with a Sharpie?


      I dunno, do they make pink sharpies?

    • Re:You can't stop commoditizing of an item (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Solandri ( 704621 ) on Tuesday February 13, 2007 @02:15PM (#18000176)

      Would daddy give his daughter The Little Mermaid on a DVD written with a Sharpie?
      Actually that's exactly what I would do. The studios claim the DVD is a license (to view the movie as often as I wish in private), not a physical product (which I could copy or distribute as I wish). But if my daughter were to destroy the physical DVD and I try to get a replacement, suddenly they claim the DVD is a physical product and I must purchase another copy to replace the broken one; the fact that I already paid for a license to view the movie doesn't matter. Which is it? A license or a physical product? No answer? Then of course I'm going to copy every DVD I buy (using a tool they've managed to outlaw as illegal) and only use the copies for viewing while the originals are kept safe from the destructive hands of little children.

      The software industry got this right. If you buy a piece of software, you get a license to the software. If you destroy the CD (or DVD), most software companies will send you replacements if you can prove your original purchase. If they ever upgrade the software, they recognize that you've already paid for a license and sell you the upgrade for less than a new copy. I suspect the reason they got it right is because the software industry is populated by people who think logically and reasonably. They treat me fairly, so I gladly pay for the software I use.

      Contrast this with the entertainment industry. If you buy a movie/song, you get a license to view/hear the song. If you destroy the CD (or DVD) they require you to buy a new license at full price. If they ever upgrade the movie/song (new media format or an extended release), they require you to buy a new license at full price. This is called trying to have your cake and eat it too. I suspect the reason the entertainment industry does things this way is because it is populated by people who try to screw everyone (even their own artists) out of every dollar they can. Excuse me for not shedding a tear for the woes of such people.

      • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

        by dwandy ( 907337 )

        If they ever upgrade the software, they recognize that you've already paid for a license and sell you the upgrade for less than a new copy.
        so I should get a discount on Balboa since I paid to see Rocky?
        Oh wait, you said "upgrade".
    • Okay - my brain imploded reading this. Between the historical inaccuracies and the complete lack of understanding of what copyright is...this needs a correction.

      "But that isn't the key element of why "piracy" is good for the market of art creation -- "piracy" is the return of power to everyone, rather than just those who are politically powerful."

      Um, no, it doesn't. Piracy is the movement of power to the pirates. Creative power has changed hands to a large degree, but not in the way that you've described

  • oblig. (Score:5, Funny)

    by Rob T Firefly ( 844560 ) on Tuesday February 13, 2007 @12:17PM (#17998246) Homepage Journal
    I don't feel like buying the magazine, anyone have a .torrent?

  • Ben Affleck (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 13, 2007 @12:19PM (#17998268)
    Yeah I'm sure Ben Affleck is eating TV dinners because of Pirates Bay. I wish someone would smack that arrogant jack ass.

    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by linzeal ( 197905 )
      TV dinners cost more than normal food. I never understood why poor and unemployed people would use their food stamps on that crap when you can make a cheese pizza yourself for 2-3 bucks and don't even get me started on Salisbury steak, shudder.

      When I was hard up for cash I always ate better than when I had cash because I had the time to cook. I figure when I am rich one day maybe I will eat better again, but working and going to school have made me eat some of the worst food ever.

      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by jctull ( 704600 )
        Maybe there is a correlation between eating TV dinners and being lazy...

      • Re:Ben Affleck (Score:4, Insightful)

        by eln ( 21727 ) on Tuesday February 13, 2007 @12:47PM (#17998676)
        Try cooking when you work 3 jobs. The people buying the crappy TV dinners tend to be the working poor, not the sitting on their ass doing nothing poor.

        Also, making a cheese pizza for 2-3 bucks is a poor choice when you can buy a TV dinner with all 4 food groups represented for $1.50.
        • There's that key word "represented". As a college student, I can tell you I felt much much better on average once I stopped eating cheap processed crap that pretended to be healthy and started cooking for myself. It was a good trade of for me, I guess is what I'm saying.

          Although it sort of defeats the purpose if all you make is a cheese pizza.

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by bogjobber ( 880402 )

          5lb. bag of rice, 5lb. bag of beans, and some fruits/veggies. Cheap as hell and extremely easy/convenient to prepare a variety of different foods. People have enough time to make food. There are very few people anywhere that do not have 15 minutes to cook a simple meal. TV dinners really aren't that much of a time saver, and are expensive. More importantly, they are often absolutely horrible for you. Even fast food, when you take into account the time spent driving to/from the restaurant is not that m

      • Re:Ben Affleck (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Lumpy ( 12016 ) on Tuesday February 13, 2007 @01:04PM (#17998934) Homepage
        Are you insane???

        A $1.99 Tv dinner costs way less than "real food". I suggest you go out and look at prices of "food" and then the prepackaged garbage they pass off as food in grocery stores. Low grade veggies are cheap like iceberg lettuce. But Romane lettuce costs $3.00 for a head. Everythign else and fruits all cost way more than bujying the prepacked garbage that is made from the grade D vegatable pieces and Meat and then breaded and deep fried to hide it's horrible taste while making it even worse for you.

        Poor people have bad nutrition because the cheap food is bad for you. It is expensive to eat good veggies, meats,grains. A loaf of crap-white bread is $0.89US a loaf of good multigrain is $3.25.. do I buy the good for you food and we starve for the week, or do I buy 2 loafs of the cheap crap and 1 jar of cheap peanutbutter (more sugar than protien) and at least have enough to make it to the next paycheck.

        I strongly suggest you get a reality dose on how the poor people really eat. Because you seem to not have a clue as to what is in most things and the costs of them. When you start digging into things like this you become horrified and then disgusted.... and dont even look at the chain fast food, that stuff will make you puke when you find out how horribly bad it is... There is a reason they can sell you a hamburger cooked and packaged for less than $1.00...

        • Re:Ben Affleck (Score:4, Interesting)

          by Hijacked Public ( 999535 ) * on Tuesday February 13, 2007 @01:38PM (#17999518)
          A packet of Myoplex costs less than $1 if you buy them in bulk on EBay, and each packet contains about half of the USRDA of more vitamins and minerals than I care to count right now. They also have enough protein to do whatever job you need protein to do.

          I'm not sure if many people have the discipline to eat them very often but they can be made to be pretty satisfying.

        • A loaf of crap-white bread is $0.89US a loaf of good multigrain is $3.25
          In the UK, I pay around 70p for a bag of strong bread flour, which is around $1.40. Add in the other ingredients (yeast, butter/oil) and it comes to around $2 for three large loaves, which works out even cheaper than the cheap pre-made loaf.

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by spun ( 1352 )
            How much is your tme worth? I make bread, too, but because it tastes better and is better for you, not because it's cheaper. A lot of prep time in bread making is waiting for it to rise, but there is quite a bit of kneading involved, at least 15 minutes by hand. Plus mixing and checking to see how it's rising every so often, punching down, more kneading, shaping & putting in loaf pans, more rising, and baking.

            Or did you perhaps invest in a bread machine, or a Kitchenaid mixer? Are you counting the oppor

    • Re:Ben Affleck (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Jackie_Chan_Fan ( 730745 ) on Tuesday February 13, 2007 @12:36PM (#17998546)
      Well there is truth to the statement that a lot of good jobs are in the movie industry and that there are lots of people from construction, lighting, writing, catering etc that all benefit from film production.

      The problem is.. Hollywood themselves do not support American film makers. Hollywood at any opportunity will move productions to Canada, and other foreign countries just to cut production costs (cheaper crews)

      So Hollywoods own pr is bullshit in many respects. Theres definatly some truth to it though. I do think piracy hurts them... but not as much as they claim. For example I havent gone to the movies much at all this past year... It's not because i've been downloading dvds like a dope addict... cause i havent been. Its because they havent inspired me to get off my ass yet. Spiderman3 i'll go see, theres a few others i'm looking forward to, but overall the way they promote films turns me off. I dont want to really go see a film that i pretty got the story from the commercial. I want to explore films, find ones that are interesting, not be told that this is the funniest film of the year... and have it not be.

      Consumers are smarter... thats all. They have more options when it comes to seeing a film and not paying for it... so they need to really be fair with consumers, lowering the ticket prices is a good start.

      My friends girl, buys dvds constantly. I mean 200$ at a time. All legal of course. We think shes nuts.... "you can rent them and copy them we exclaim" :) But she loves to buy them. I'm a movie nut myself and she outspends me, and i consider her a more casual consumer of films.... cause she buys lots of crap :)

      DVD sales have slowed dramatically though. Most analysts will say that the dvd days are done. The sales are bottomed and they're hoping for HD and Bluray to spark that massive dvd like buying trend that took place with dvds.... I dont know if people are that willing to buy another entire library of films they already own... Sure some films... but thats asking a lot form a consumer in a format war.

      Its possible that the saving grace to film sales, will be technology... a constant upgrade in technology.... Soon uncompressed 4000x3000 resolution laser displays! Freddy Got Fingered will have never looked better! (i love that movie.. its brillant... i know.. shut up)

    • So the fact he was paid a lot for Gigli means you and others have the right to steal his work and make sure he's never paid for it?

      If you guys reject copyright here, then you have to reject the GPL as well, since the GPL relies on copyright.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by spun ( 1352 )
        No, the fact that he even made Gigli means that every single person in the world who so much as had to sit through a commercial for it has the right to kick him in the nuts, repeatedly and with steel-toed boots.
      • If you guys reject copyright here, then you have to reject the GPL as well, since the GPL relies on copyright.

        No we don't.

        For example, we could say that copyright doesn't apply to individuals making or distributing copies for personal use, but that it does apply to commercial activities and to non-natural persons (e.g. corporate entities). While this would arguably permit people to ignore the GPL in some instances, they likely wouldn't bother; after all, copyright law is actually pretty unfavorable to the G
  • But I thought it would be an article about Kiera Knightly's vagina, not copyright infringement.

  • Annoying pointlessly multi-page articles. (Score:5, Informative)

    by Funkcikle ( 630170 ) * on Tuesday February 13, 2007 @12:24PM (#17998326)
    Single page version. [vanityfair.com]

    Why on earth /. doesn't just link to these where available, I will never know...

    • Re:Annoying pointlessly multi-page articles. (Score:5, Funny)

      by anonicon ( 215837 ) on Tuesday February 13, 2007 @12:46PM (#17998670)
      Why on earth /. doesn't just link to these where available, I will never know...

      Because the users who submit the articles either don't know or don't care about the uni-page alternative when they're sending their story link in, and the editors are still coming down off last weekend's methamphetamine bender with a gaggle of prostitutes, a case of tequila, and a goat named Rhonda.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by joshetc ( 955226 )
      If they don't like to the single page version one lucky soul per story gets to karma whore. Seems like a good reason to me...

  • Answer: No. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by nherc ( 530930 ) on Tuesday February 13, 2007 @12:27PM (#17998386) Journal
    What bizarre form of nerd reads Vanity Fair AND /.?
    • What bizarre form of nerd reads Vanity Fair AND /.?

      Heh. You know, nerd is as nerd does. My magazine/newspaper subscriptions:
      Wall Street Journal
      Forbes (Hey, they offered it for $10 a year. It sucks, but you can't beat that.)
      Playboy
      Esquire (gift, but a fine magazine)
      Sports Weekly

      And I've obviously had a Slashdot account for years. We don't all hate sports and business. Some of us are huge sports fans with business degrees, you know!
    • Those who can type "PirateBay" http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ned=&q=pirate+ba y&btnG=Search+News [google.com] and get 302 article first of which is of course /. and second is, voila, Vanity Fair.

  • Bah (Score:5, Funny)

    by Gerocrack ( 979018 ) on Tuesday February 13, 2007 @12:33PM (#17998482)
    I'm waiting for the article on Slashdot to come out in Cosmo.

  • Yes (Score:2, Funny)

    by robably ( 1044462 )

    Did you ever think you'd be reading about TPB in Vanity Fair?

    Yes, but I make lists of these things.

    Neal Stephenson interviewed in Carpet Steaming News about his cat hair problem.
    Jerry Garcia interviewed about curtains through a medium in Woman's Own.
    Tony Blair interviewed about cheese through a trumpet in Lego Builders Weekly.
    George W Bush interviewed upside-down from a flying carpet through a Chinese pipe in Hanglider's Review.

    Actually, no. What a bloody stupid question.

  • Hollywoods increasing losses? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by stratjakt ( 596332 ) on Tuesday February 13, 2007 @12:43PM (#17998636) Journal
    I read not too long ago the industry was making record profits.

    Of course, the piece I read was in a business magazine, and seemed aimed at potential investors, not consumers.

    Guess the message changes depending on who they're talking to.

    I'll read about movies shattering box office records one day, and then read the sad, sad, tale of how Tom Hanks, Ron Howard and Glazer "only" get 25% of the net from Da Vinci Code, instead of 40%, because it didn't make the box office they'd hoped and the studio wanted more bucks. This is all because of internet piracy, not because it's a shitty formulaic movie based on a shitty formulaic novel that many people were sick of hearing about.

    I don't support pirating DVD rips, because IMO, unlike the RIAA, I actually think DVD's are priced fairly. They sell very well, as I'm told, and as far as I can see from anecdotal evidence: In our mall, the two music stores are gone - and a suncoast movie store just opened up, and another gamestop.

    Whatever, they can whine about piracy and we can whine about how we feel justified in pirating, etc. Nothing is going to change, though. If the big studios cant compete they'll close down, and others will take their place.
    • It's difficult to tell how much Hollywood is making because they try and hide their international ticket and DVD sales as much as possible. There's also the famous Hollywood accounting system where profits are juggled through intermediaries until the film isn't making money anymore. Overall it's pretty much impossible for outsiders to get an exact figure of how well they're doing, but judging by the fact that they are still cranking out very large budget movies by the dozen (many over $100 million and a f

  • No, that's the whole point... (Score:3, Funny)

    by solevita ( 967690 ) on Tuesday February 13, 2007 @12:47PM (#17998678)

    Did you ever think you'd be reading about TPB in Vanity Fair?

    The news would be pretty dull if I expected all of it. I guess that's why they call it "news".

  • Legal battle in Sweden (Score:5, Informative)

    by denoir ( 960304 ) on Tuesday February 13, 2007 @01:09PM (#17999018)
    The battle of piracy laws in Sweden is far from over but there have been a number of defining decisions and events that will affect the end result.

    The first major blow to the anti-piracy lobby was when the courts ruled that collecting IP addresses was a privacy violation.

    The second blow was when the courts fined a guy that was engaged in sharing movies. The big point was that they didn't send him to jail. By Swedish law for a search warrant to be issued, the suspected crime must be punishable by jail. So no search warrants for copyright infringements.

    The third blow was that the courts found that electronically collected evidence was not enough for a copyright infringement conviction. Hard evidence was needed (computer hardware with the violating media installed) - which was not possible to obtain because of the previous ruling.

    The pirate bay spectacle has come at a huge political cost for the involved. The former minster of justice Thomas Bodström is facing hearings suspected of "ministerstyre" - as a minister putting pressure on civil servants, something excessively illegal and unconstitutional. It's major league stuff.

    Furthermore the pirate bay case according to almost every legal analysis is non-existent. They didn't even have any copyrighted material on their server - just torrent links - which is not against Swedish law. So why hasn't the case been dropped? Because everybody got so scared over the political shit storm came down crashing following the raids last year. Nobody involved wants to touch it and much less admit that it was because of political pressure. So the prosecutor is pushing on with the case although it is blatantly obvious to everybody that there won't be any convictions.

    If this all above makes you think that the battle is over and has been lost by the anti-pirating lobby, well, you'd be wrong. Swedish law is much less precedent based than for instance US or UK laws. The text of the law is more important than previous cases and you need a shitload of precedent before it becomes relevant. Right now we have something that amounts to anecdotal evidence. The anti-piracy lobby groups are trying to get convictions that would go against the existing precedents and it is not entirely impossible that they will succeed.

    The political situation is a bit different as file sharing is really on the march in Sweden. Some 1.2 million were estimated in 2005 and 2.5 million in 2006. That's a lot for a population of 9 million. You can't make nearly a third of the population criminals and the politicians have recognized that. Through that and because of the pirate bay scandal all the Swedish major parties have expressed the wish to find some form of general solution (a tax of some sort has been suggested) for both allowing people to freely download and for the artists to get paid. While this is far from being implemented, the idea of a "war on piracy" is very dead. The anti-piracy groups will do their thing but they can't expect any political support.

    • You can't make nearly a third of the population criminals and the politicians have recognized that.

      Uh, what? I don't know much about Sweden, or frankly the rest of the world (I've never been able to afford to travel) but here in the US, practically everyone is some type of criminal. They've created this position quite deliberately. The government has no power to compel the innocent.

  • I'm consistently impressed with the tech/geek articles that show up in VF and The New Yorker, both of which I subscribe to. A lot of people move back and forth between the two, so I guess I should expect it. Similarly, New Scientist does some good work (although often pretty shallowly and without a lot of fact-checking.) But I find it reassuring that a number of fairly high-end magazines, that are read by the rich and influential, are all saying things very like what I read on slashdot, usually with a la

  • hehehe... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Simulant ( 528590 ) on Tuesday February 13, 2007 @01:13PM (#17999086) Journal

    "And what father would give his little daughter a copy of the 20th-anniversary edition of The Little Mermaid with the title scrawled in Sharpie?"

    This one.
    To not do so would be hypocritical on my part.

      The "end of the entertainment industry as we know it" does not strike me as a bad thing.

  • It seems to be a fairly common sentiment that while stealing is a bad thing, stealing from the rich is OK.

    If you honestly think that movie stars get paid too much, don't steal the resulting work, just don't buy it.

    How much a DVD costs is determined by what people are willing to pay for it. Period. You can whine a cry about these idiot movie stars making 50x what you make, but if you go buy their movies anyway then you're just being stupid.
  • Funniest thing I've heard this morning.

    I know people in the industry and they all tell me, without reservation, that some of the most creative accounting in the world happens in the entertainment industry. If you live anywhere near the Westside of Los Angeles it's easy to see there's a class of entertainment-folks doing quite well.

    Hardly an authoritative link, but you'll get the idea. http://www.dailyhaggis.com/2003/07/02/my-big-fat-g reek-lawsuit/ [dailyhaggis.com]

    Or, let's take a look at the price of mega-corp sony. http [yahoo.com]

  • They should make it cheaper (Score:4, Insightful)

    by guruevi ( 827432 ) on Tuesday February 13, 2007 @02:17PM (#18000224)
    They should make movies, music etc. much cheaper and without DRM, especially the main stream media. Sure they can say, that it costs a lot to create stuff, but if we give the performing people according to what they do and not what they look like, that would make the costs plummet. I always hate when they talk about an actor, getting $13 million for maybe a year long project. I probably won't ever make that in my life. I currently think I am paid pretty well (70k+) and I can support myself. I can understand that they probably need/want/deserve more but anything over $2m/year is a little overrated for me.

    Also, eliminate organizations like RIAA, MPAA and other shills that are not adding any positive value to the process (that includes DRM, ratings etc). Look at any standard business model, any piece in an organization that is not performing or delivering any added value (short or long term) to the organization is (usually) cut loose.

  • PI.R.A.tes?! (Score:2, Insightful)

    by cianjo ( 884149 )
    FTFA: "...the prosecutor responded in hysterical Valenti mode, comparing Pirate Bay to the I.R.A. ..."

    WTF... Seriously. The IRA (Well all the different factions thereof) is a criminal organisation that has *killed* thousands of people. (Or is this some pacifist Swedish I.R.A. that I'm not aware of?)

    The Pirate Bay has caused no loss of life with its intellectual property infringement. Unless you count the despairing MPAA executives jumping to their deaths. That prosecutor has no fscking idea what he is talki

Slashdot Top Deals

Software production is assumed to be a line function, but it is run like a staff function. -- Paul Licker

Close