

Anonymous donors bring Hollywood production values to anti-MPAA video - gitarr
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/08/anonymous-donors-bring-hollywood-production-values-to-anti-mpaa-video/

======
chris_wot
Interestingly - it appears that this is _exactly_ what happened in NZ to Kim
Dotcom! Video actually shows what happened...

<https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4360390>

~~~
stevenrace
Moreover, it further points the blame at Senator Dodd (Current MPAA CEO and US
Senator...parodied as 'Senator Rodd' in the video).

From the website promoting the video (<http://www.political-
prostitution.com/>):

"Kim Dotcom has publicly accused Joe Biden of ordering the shutdown of his
Megaupload website in coordination with Chris Dodd. As evidence, Dotcom cites
the public White House visitor log which shows visits from Dodd and the CEOs
of Warner Brothers, Paramount Pictures, Walt Disney and Universal Studios all
on the same day in July 2011. Also visiting that day was Mike Ellis, former
superintendent of the Hong Kong Police and currently an MPAA Asia division
executive. The MPAA publicly denies that Ellis is a known extradition expert
and has dismissed Dotcom's claims. - Source
[[http://betabeat.com/2012/07/mpaa-kim-dotcom-joe-biden-
chris-...](http://betabeat.com/2012/07/mpaa-kim-dotcom-joe-biden-chris-dodd-
conspiracy-theory-07052012/)] "

------
chris_wot
For those who believe that this couldn't happen... Kim Dotcom. dajaz1.com.
Patti Santangelo. Richard O'Dwyer. The list goes on!

~~~
davidw
From the article:

> Obviously, the video is over-the-top. Nothing exactly like the incident
> depicted has happened in real life. The US government doesn't subject
> copyright defendants to the same harsh treatment as suspected terrorists.
> But after the commando-style raid on Kim Dotcom's mansion in January, it may
> be close enough to the truth to make effective propaganda.

~~~
nraynaud
it's only a matter of time, the subject has already been prepared by saying
that terrorism is helped by copyright infringement, this is a gateway.

Before 2001 there where no concentration camps in the US, now there is
Guantanamo bay, also terrorism was way lower in 2001 than it was in the
70's/80's (look at Italy, France, UK).

There where no official State-planned torture (only rogue soldiers in war) now
there are "procedures".

The idea is two stepped: 1) "everything is acceptable under terrorism" 2) "we
can bring links to terrorism to some other matters".

For now I think linking copyright infringement to terrorism is not effective
(it's been pushed for a few years), but that might change.

~~~
briandear
Concentration Camps? Are you really going to make that parallel, we're talking
about less than 200 prisoners, who are well-fed, guarded by soldiers who must
go out of their way not to offend their charges' religion. Americans in jail
for minor drug possession are treated worse than Gitmo prisoners. As far as
torture, you don't know anything about which you type. Ask the Vietnamese,
Chinese, Iranians, Russians and Turks about torture, then waterboarding will
seem like a 5 year old girl's birthday party. It's very easy to be
sanctimonious from the comfort of your chair.

Make your argument, but don't venture into hyperbole fueled by Michael Moore
delusions.

As far as terrorism being helped by copyright infringement, that IS a stretch.
It's like saying terrorism is helped by Coca-Cola sales because some rogue
mosque happens to have a Coke machine.

~~~
rmk2
The term "concentration camp" actually describes exactly what Guantanamo Bay
is.

I'm linking to wikipedia because it nicely gathers all the dictionary entries
alongside the genesis of term.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concentration_camps#Concentrat...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concentration_camps#Concentration_camp)

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_concentration_and_inte...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_concentration_and_internment_camps#United_States)

------
thexa4
Campaign behind it is here: <http://www.political-prostitution.com/>

------
jrockway
I like the parody of the MPAA logo. Not sure why they made up a new name for
the MPAA, however.

~~~
TazeTSchnitzel
For the same reason they changed the president's name. The MPAA would sue them
otherwise.

------
bobsy
Pretty sure you wouldn't send armed police to arrest a kid who infringed
copyright. Certain you wouldn't pistol whip an unarmed kid while he is sitting
in his chair.

I was expect a hard hitting short video showing the facts about the effects of
hollywood lobbying on US law as well as the greater effects of its
implementation on countries abroad.

Instead we get a video that made me laugh at the ridiculousness scenario
someone dreamed up.

~~~
Joakal
> Police say Dotcom posed "low threat." Dotcom says they beat him anyway.

[http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/08/helicopters-
guns-...](http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/08/helicopters-guns-attack-
dogs-new-video-shows-raid-on-dotcom-home/)

You can see the video in that article too.

~~~
briandear
Dotcom should not be a poster boy for "innocent" victim. He has a long
criminal history. As far as anything Dotcom says, how can you believe him?
He's been convicted of insider trading, embezzlement, computer fraud, handling
stolen goods, selling stolen credit card numbers.. Those credit card numbers
were attached to real people who had their lives highly inconvenienced by a
thief. Why the hell do people celebrate Dotcom? He's not a crusader. He's just
trying to get paid. If he did it all for free, I might be inclined to respect
him, despite disagreeing with his actions. But this punk lived it up in a
mansion like some kind of player and he wants us to feel sorry for him? This
is like feeling sorry for Scarface.

~~~
GFischer
I don't want to defend Dotcom, but what I believe was over the top was the
procedure for arresting him - some other posters have made what I believe is a
valid analogy, in that the US law enforcement agencies have not proceeded in
the same way against Enron's CEO for example - another person found guilty of
insider trading and fraud, just like Dotcom. Or Bernie Madoff.

Both did arguably more hand than Dotcom, yet neither had an armed raid against
them. In Madoff's case, the assets seizure was handled way more carefully.

~~~
tedunangst
Neither of those men had _prior_ convictions.

------
milesskorpen
Interesting video, but the whole things seems to be blown out of proportion.
The video cost US$5,000. The funders were two people working in financial
services, outside of the US. Given the title, I was expecting a heck of a lot
more.

------
Keyframe
Interesting video, but nothing "hollywood production" in a video shot with
DSLR and minute lighting, sorry.

------
jentulman
Serious question. Is that Dave Grohl playing the senator?

------
SeanDav
Often wondered why those with serious money don't do more of these type of
gestures. I certainly hope to be able to do this when/if I get into the
position that I can.

