ZeroPaid.com » movies

French Report – Legal Punishment for Filesharing as Severe as Manslaughter

Drew Wilson — Mon, 29 Aug 2011 21:14:08 +0000

One of the criticisms of copyright laws has, for some time, been that the punishment is far too severe for the crime being committed. This debate is nothing new and it seems to be heating up in Europe right now. One French news site decided to compare the penalties of file-sharing to the penalties of other offenses. The results? They are a little scary.

The report comes from Numerama which was inspired by a recent conviction in Sweden. They asked, if someone could be put in jail for 3 years for file-sharing, what other crimes could someone commit and get either an equal sentence or less? They said (Google translated, original) said that the answers pretty much speak for themselves and I, for one, completely agree. Two things to keep in mind: this is all about French law and the laws are sourced nicely (job well done to Numerama in that department for sure). Here are some of the offenses that could earn you a jail sentence similar to that if you were convicted of copyright infringement on a file-sharing network:

Manslaughter
Repeatedly sending death threats on a transfixed medium
Conducting biomedical procedures on someone without the consent of the patient
Theft
Breach of trust
Some forms of obstruction of justice

Here are some of the offenses that could land you in jail for less time:

Sexual exhibition in a public place
Harassment in order to obtain sexual favors
The desecration of a corpse in a cemetery/attacking a corpse
Third party identity theft (note: this wasn't entirely clear in the translation, but we are presuming that the translation meant "third party" since it simply says "by a third")
The abandonment of a child/infant
Making sexual advances to a minor whether electronically or otherwise (if the minor is 15 years old or younger)
Destruction of other people's property
Serious offenses related to animal abuse

I'm looking through this and I really wonder what is wrong with a legal system that says that if you are caught sharing copyrighted works, you could get a sentence as long as someone who killed someone. I personally can't see how it should be possible in the first place. Still, this has always been an extremely effective way of showing just how extreme the penalties have become for something so trivial as someone having a copyrighted work in their shared directory. I'm a music producer myself and I have always been all for the sharing of my works online for free. I think that even if I were hardcore all for copyright, I would have a hard time, at the very least, trying to explain to the public why someone who made sexual advances to a minor should serve less time than someone who is uploading an album on the Gnutella network. The thing is that with a lot of these offenses in the list are offenses where people are being directly harmed. For me, I don't think anyone could make a convincing case that file-sharing is a crime that is as bad as killing someone. Such comparisons have been made before. One great example in the US was looking at the Deepwater Horizon oil spill - the largest oil spill in US history. According to one report, BP was facing a $21 Billion fine. Looking at the damages for infringement one can find out that the BP fine presented in that particular report can be the equivalent to downloading 140,000 songs or 70,000 songs in the case of willful infringement. In any event, I think for French people, this really does put into perspective how high the penalties are for infringement. The day we start placing intellectual property on a higher level of value than life itself is the day I think society needs to seriously re-look at our values. Have a tip? Want to contact the author? You can do so by sending a PM via the forums or via e-mail at drew@zeropaid.com.

16 Year Old Faces Multiple Years in Prison for Linking to Copyrighted Material

Drew Wilson — Sun, 26 Jun 2011 20:18:28 +0000

The owner of a website called cinema-world.biz is now facing multiple years in prison for linking to copyrighted material. According to Czech anti-piracy outfit, it's the first time an administrator has been charged, but the owner says that the numbers used as evidence against him are inflated.

A press release (Czech, original) by the Czech Anti-Piracy Union was released early on this month about the accusations leveled against the owner of Cinima-world.biz. The press release contained the following:

Liberec, January 4, 2011: A sixteen year old boy from Liberec was yesterday accused of committing the crime of copyright infringement, rights related to copyright and database rights in accordance with § 152 of the Penal Code. According to police, the crime committed by that ran the website, which after almost two years to allow the public online via links movies and serials. Given his young age he is at only half the prison sentence than an adult, so if found guilty of unlawful interference with copyright to a large extent up to 2.5 years, and monetary measures up to 500,000 crowns. Even if the crime committed until April 2010, police accused him under the Criminal Code in force until the end of 2009, it is favorable to the offender. Under the new Criminal Code, an offense is a breach of copyright, rights related to copyright and database rights can store up to eight-year prison sentence.

So, in short, the website owner offered links to copyrighted material and was subsequently busted. Since he is a youth, his sentence would be automatically reduced. While the press release provides some of the evidence they have against him, a more recent interview reveals that the owner believes the numbers shown were inflated. The interview is on Pirate Newspaper (Google translated, original) He had some interesting interesting things to say about the incident including the following: (when asked if there was any copyrighted material located on his servers)

I did not load anything anywhere, everything was copied from similar sites.

(on the profitability of such a site)

Well, it was about two months after starting full operation the second site, it was a text ad. The reason was simple: The site has been increasingly difficult for hosting and I could not afford such a pay hosting alone. I went mainly to finance the operation itself, from the beginning I was not profitable.

(when asked about having 15.5 million visitors to the site)

Absolutely not. Visitors to the site indicated was obviously biased to increase the prestige of the site. There are sites with the same content and a lot more visitors. The daily average was about 7,000 people a few times that I managed to get 15 000 people per day was an exception and not the rule, visitors are also quite varied, last month it was only a few thousand people per day.

Some additional news coverage (Google translated, a href=http://liberec.idnes.cz/student-daval-na-web-odkazy-na-stazeni-filmu-hrozi-mu-vezeni-pl5-/liberec-zpravy.aspx?c=A110621_171113_liberec-zpravy_alh target=_blank>original) suggests that the youth caused 122 million CZK in damages (about $7,050,394.77 USD). Of course, if these numbers are derived from inflated numbers (and if it relies on the deeply flawed methodology of one download = one lost sale) then the numbers presented are highly inflated to begin with. There appears to be a conflict between the media report and the press release on whether the youth faces 2.5 years or 4 years in prison. What's most interesting is the interview. It seems that the youth was mainly linking to sites like MegaVideo for the content. It also seems that he was operating a dime-a-dozen operation to begin with. The fact that such a low-key website was targeted might suggest that anti-piracy operations are focusing on the lowest levels of the piracy pyramid for now. The case has a number of similarities to the TVShack operator. What's particularly interesting is the fact that the TVShack operator is facing extradition to the US while the owner of cinema-world is being prosecuted within his own country. I think that if the anti-piracy outfits are targeting websites that are merely linking to copyrighted material, they have a long way to go before they even come close to knocking out a small portion of them. These types of sites are always springing up and knocking out two would barely even be considered a drop in the bucket. Some might suggest that this is a sign of desperation for anti-piracy outfits to get a high profile conviction into the media. Outside of being able to write a few press releases, I really don't see how taking down a tiny site like cinema-world.biz will really have an effect on what they perceive as piracy operations around the world. Have a tip? Want to contact the author? You can do so by sending a PM via the forums or via e-mail at drew@zeropaid.com.

Hollywood Employees in US Hit Hard By OutSourcing

Drew Wilson — Fri, 11 Feb 2011 00:52:56 +0000

There's never been a shortage of press releases over the years about the MPAA blaming piracy for massive job losses. The numbers never seemed to add up given that most numbers being thrown about seemed to come from nowhere concrete. The question that does sometimes come out is, if Hollywood employees are being laid off, where are all the jobs going and why? A report that has surfaced about the state of the jobs does point to a much more plausible source for job losses - outsourcing.

How many times have you heard things like piracy steal jobs? Numbers being pushed seemingly suggest that these numbers are more often then not completely made up. Sometimes they are based on someone's hypothetical model, other times, there isn't even a model these pro-copyright restriction advocates are basing it off of. Many studies that say how piracy have been debunked in the past including one particularly outrageous suggestion that one month of torrenting costs more money then the entire GDP of France from back in 2006. In fact, countless study after study have suggested that either piracy has no effect on sales or is a net benefit to sales. So, one question that might come up for those still skeptical about any potential net benefits to piracy might be that they know of people being laid off in, say, the movie industry. If piracy is not a detriment to movie sales, why are there occasional reports that say that jobs are still being lost in North America? Turns out, one of the big problems is a problem facing pretty much every industry - outsourcing. A report on the LATimes highlighted recently how a successful visual effects studio called Asylum Visual Effects, which was involved in the effects seen in movies like "The Curious Case of Benjamin Button", "The Sorcerer's Apprentice" and "Terminator Salvation," was forced to shut down. The story discusses how, in spite of getting some decent credits to their name and earning Academy Award Nomination, the studio was forced to close, laying off almost 100 workers. The cause? Foreign competition for the same work. Sometimes, it's because of studio's located in Vancouver Canada. Canada was an interesting source to where the jobs are going because conventional wisdom says that when the Canadian dollar rises - especially above parity like it is now - there are less incentives for the studios to tap talent from there. Other places that were blamed for job losses were London, England and the ever famous outsourcing destinations China, Singapore and India. Outsourcing is not an uncommon problem in the fields of the arts and technology. Sometimes, quick browsing through outsourcing sites like freelancer will be enough for some professionals in North America to get uneasy over their job security. Whether or not you believe that piracy is costing jobs, it's very hard to dismiss outsourcing as at least a cause for some firms in North America to shut down, laying off dozens or even hundreds of workers in the process. I'd say just saying piracy is a sole source for job losses is extremely disingenuous at best. Have a tip? Want to contact the author? You can do so by sending a PM via the forums or via e-mail at drew@zeropaid.com.

DRM and Firmware Update Locks Thousands of Movie Fans Out of Their Movies

Drew Wilson — Thu, 26 Aug 2010 05:57:32 +0000

Another day, another story about copy protection locking legitimate customers from the very content they legally purchased. So for your viewing pleasure, we present yet another horror story of DRM gone wrong.

Copy protection is suppose to stop pirates from watching movies while legitimate customers are able to view their favorite movies, not the other way around. Unfortunately for some Samsung Blu-Ray player owners, that's exactly what is happening right now. NewTeeVee is reporting that a firmware update blocked many consumers from viewing over a dozen titles released by Warner and Universal Studios. Currently, the solution is to downgrade to the previous firmware, but some owners report that this solution does not work. Reportedly, titles that are affected include The Book of Eli, Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince, The Incredible Hulk (2008), Battlestar Galactica Season 3, Sherlock Holmes, and Invictus. From the report:

This isn’t the first time Blu-ray players have struggled with playing back certain movies. Earlier this year, customers reported issues with playing the Avatar Blu-ray disc on some Samsung players. The issue was apparently so widespread that Amazon was forced to alert customers of potential issues with a warning message on the movie’s product page. Similar warnings haven’t been put in place yet for the titles affected by the latest firmware issues. So why does this keep happening to Blu-ray discs? You might have guessed by now: it’s all about copy protection. Regular DVDs used to have a copy protection technology that was easily circumvented because it was based on a single encryption key. Once that key was extracted, all DVDs were free for the taking, and tools to copy DVDs are now easily available, even though it’s still illegal to use them in most cases. Blu-ray’s copy protection, on the other hand, is based on regularly updated encryption keys. Companies like Slysoft, which provides a Blu-ray copying tool, have to put significantly more effort into cracking these keys. Once a key is compromised, an update is released, which then also requires updates to Blu-ray players — and that’s where things have been going wrong left and right.

As we noted, this is just another story in a long line of issues facing legitimate customers when dealing with copy protection. It was only earlier this month that people who paid for Starcraft 2 have found themselves locked out of their own legally paid for game because the server that handled copy protection went down. In fact, it was only just the other day that problems with copy protection forced Ubisoft to discontinue the use of a very strict DRM system in favor of Steam.. If the copy protection didn't exist in Blu-Ray, this would never have happened. This is why you would never experience a problem like this in VHS players because there was no such thing as an internet firmware update on them. The punchline in all of this is that in each instance, if you pirated the content, you are not affected by these problems. If you legally paid for the media, you ultimately couldn't even use the content. It's the exact opposite of the promise by DRM vendors of locking out would-be pirates and having only legitimate customers enjoying your product. Critics, for years, warned that copy protection would have consequences like this, but it seems like, for a number of companies, these warnings were not heeded at their own peril. The sad part is, many other companies will also learn the hard way that copy protection will more than likely sting you in the end. Have a tip? Want to contact the author? You can do so by sending a PM via the forums or via e-mail at drew@zeropaid.com.

Philippine Federal Police and the MPA Reach Agreement to Combat Piracy

Drew Wilson — Tue, 10 Aug 2010 06:21:12 +0000

The Philippine Federal Police (PNP) and the Motion Picture Association (MPA) have reached an agreement to work more closely together to combat movie piracy. The agreement includes influence from the Motion Picture Anti-Film Piracy Council (MPAFPC) and the National Cinema Association.

Following the signing, the head of the PNP Jesus Verzosa said that home searches and seizures would not be enough to combat piracy and that prosecuting those responsible for piracy operations with more severe penalties is the way to go. The government of the Philippines would now be tasked to take care of the larger piracy operations. As part of the agreement, there is the power to demand tougher anti-piracy laws. One of the laws being put into the forefront is a new anti-camcording law. This particular point stood out to me because Canada was pressured to put in place an anti-camcording law which ultimately passed (Bill C-59 at the time) back in 2007. It was strange given that it was effectively criminalizing what was already technically illegal in Canada. Some wondered if the US copyright industry even understood Canadian law and whether this law was just something scribbled on the back of a napkin. Either way, arrests were since made against theater pirates who were trying to record movies onto their camera's - under Canada's "old" copyright laws. Whether or not this is the case for the Philippines is unclear. Whether or not such a law would have much of an effect in that country is also unclear. The MPA said that the Philippines is the worst for theater piracy, but we've heard so many countries that are the "worst" for piracy, it's difficult to really say for certain which countries well and truly are the worst. Is China the worst for piracy? What about Russia? Is a country in Africa the worst? What about Canada? How does countries like Sweden fare on that list? Who really knows? Currently, fines for being caught in a film piracy operation ranges anywhere between 50,000 (1,109.88 USD) to 750,000 Philippine pesos (16,648.17 USD). That might sound somewhat reasonable until you take in to account that the idea for an average person earning the equivalent of $8 an hour is simply unheard of. The average annual income as of 2006 for a whole family was 172,000 Pesos or about 3,817.98 USD. With the cost of living being so low as well as the average income, that $16,000 (USD) may as well be 16 million as far as the average person living in the Philippines. What good is it to increase the fines exactly anyway? It's like trying to draw blood from a stone, it isn't going to happen. Those who are already dedicated to film piracy are already risking bankruptcy if they get caught. Raising these fines really means the difference between bankrupting them and bankrupting them. Current prison terms for those that get caught is already six months to six years. Really, the only thing that may be accomplished here is demanding the ramping up of enforcement. After a recent bomb attack as well as unstable peace talks with local rebel groups, it doesn't look like there would be a whole heck of a lot of resources devoted to enforcement of intellectual property rights unless enforcement came from outside the country. It would likely be more wise to devote resources to keeping the country in one piece more than anything else. (Hat tip: Gulli [German]) Have a tip? Want to contact the author? You can do so by sending a PM via the forums or via e-mail at drew@zeropaid.com.

Records Fall As UK Movie Industry Profits Soar

Drew Wilson — Wed, 28 Jul 2010 06:25:21 +0000

It's not a well kept secret, but it is facts like this that copyright holders would rather keep quiet when discussing online piracy. This isn't the first time movies rake in record breaking profits while the industry argues that the industry is facing total collapse due to unauthorized downloading, but one more reminder wouldn't hurt.

It's that tired old argument the movie industry uses over and over again to justify overly strict copyright laws - piracy is killing the movie industry and it needs to be stopped or else the movie industry will collapse. Studies bought by the industry try and say they are losing billions in profits, but those billions really wind up being a made-up statistic or a guesstimation a lot since it's based on the premise of one download means one lost sale which has been proven repeatedly to be a flawed argument. Industry execs might say, "Well, if the industry isn't doing so bad, where are the headlines that say the industry is doing well?" We can most certainly help with that. You can find those headlines here, here, here, and, for good measure, here and here. So what's the story like in other countries like, say, the UK? Turns out, it's the same story, different country. Techdirt points to a very interesting page from the UK Film Council which has the following information:

UK film grossed $2 billion at the worldwide box office last year;
UK box-office takings are at record-breaking levels, worth £944 million in the UK in 2009, up 62% from 2000;
The overall territory box office gross for the UK and the Republic of Ireland exceeded £1 billion for the first time in 2009;
UK Film Council investments in British films have been hugely successful – for every £1 we have invested, £5 has been generated at the box office;
Over 173.5 million people went to the cinema in the UK in 2009 – up 31 million from 2000, the highest since 2002 and the second highest since 1971;

Not exactly the ailing industry being killed by file-sharing. All this on top of a posting earlier this month by the the Cinema Exhibitors Association Ltd which claims, "In 2009, financial losses to the cinema industry due to copyright theft were estimated to be around £144m. That equates to over 15 per cent of box office, or some 26 million attendances" So, let me get this straight, the UK film industry broke revenue records by posting an astounding £944 million at the box office, up 62% from 2000, and without skipping a beat, complain that their industry is dying due to an alleged estimated £144 million loss (no doubt derived from the flawed logic of one download means one lost sale). Somehow, out of all of this, are we suppose to be sympathetic for the industry over money? Forgive me for thinking that something doesn't really add up - especially when it's the same industry that is begging lawmakers to pass overly restrictive laws such as a three strikes law in the UK which most people feel is too strict to begin with. Personally, I really don't feel sorry for them on this front. Have a tip? Want to contact the author? You can do so by sending a PM via the forums or via e-mail at drew@zeropaid.com.

“The Expendables” Trailer: Watch in F-ing Theater, Not Off BitTorrent!

Jared Moya — Wed, 14 Jul 2010 08:45:34 +0000

Star-studded action flic issues a "call to arms" for men to take back theaters from chic-flics like "Twilight," "Sex in the City," and especially Julia Robert's forthcoming "Eat, Pray, Love."

Next month action movie fans, especially of the ones produced in the 1980's heydays with the likes of Willis, Stallone, Schwarzenegger , and Russel, will be treated to a star-studded cast in the movie "The Expendables," and already it's challenging men of all ages to "to take back what's ours." "Gentleman, while you've been at home NOOB tubing total strangers, duct taping 40s to your hands, you've been handing the keys to Hollywood to teenage girls and G.N.O.," reads the movie's latest trailer. "Julia Roberts might be the final blow. 'Eat, Pray, Love." It warns that August 13th, the day the movie debuts in US theaters, might be "our last chance" to "take back what's ours." The cast reads like a who's who of action movies over the last 30 years. It stars no less than: Sylvester Stallone, Jason Statham, Jet Li, Mickey Rourke, Arnold Schwarzenegger , Bruce Willis, and even Dolph Lundgren of "Rocky IV" fame. Part of the movie's call to arms is for men to watch the movie "not off your torrents" but "in a fucking theater where violence belongs." And if men don't show up it warns, and "The Expendables," heaven forbid, loses to "Eat, Pray, Love," then it says you "don't deserve to be a man." I have to say that I'm actually looking forward to watching this movie - in a theater. I miss the old action movies where you could count on lines by Arnie telling criminals to "stick around" after he impales them with a sword and leaves them to dangle on a wall. I've seen several other trailers for the movie and from what I've seen it looks pretty good. "The Expendables" may just be the type of movie worth staying off torrents for. At the very least it'll be mhy way of repudiating "Twilight" and "Eat, Pray, Love." Stay tuned. jared@zeropaid.com

Canadian Documentarians Infuriated Over Copyright Legislation

Drew Wilson — Thu, 03 Jun 2010 03:10:55 +0000

It only took hours after Canada's latest copyright reform bill for there to be condemnation. The Documentary Organization of Canada (DOC) said that they were "dismayed" at the copyright bill. Why are they upset at the legislation? The digital locks being able to override critical copyright exceptions.

We reported on the tabling of Canada's new copyright reform bill (Bill C-32) just hours ago. One of the things that stuck out for those who were part of the media lock-up (where media can look at upcoming legislation prior to the tabling of the bill so that everyone can produce a report quickly as the bill is being tabled) was that if content contained a digital lock, any exceptions like format shifting, satirical examination, etc. would be overruled. For years, we've been saying that content creators too want a loosened copyright bill and this latest development shows, once again, that this assertion is true. In a statement, DOC said, "In an age when culture is increasingly digitized, fair and lawful access to content on digital devices for non-infringing purposes is essential. Documentary filmmakers sought two changes to the law to facilitate their creativity: first, to make fair dealing less rigid and more flexible so that it could be applied with greater certainty to filmmakers' fair practices. Second, DOC sought anti-circumvention laws - legal protection for digital locks on content - that would not hinder filmmakers who require access to content behind such a lock to make a film. Bill C-32, introduced today, offers documentary filmmakers neither of those options." "Instead of rational anti-circumvention laws," DOC continues, "Bill-C32 offers extreme, US-style laws. As a result, documentary filmmakers will not be able to use as source material any content behind a digital lock." "Fair Dealing is key to doc filmmakers' ability to tell stories about the people, places and events that effect Canadians. By outlawing the breaking of digital locks, the government is creating an impenetrable fence around legal access to copyrighted material. Stifling the ability of documentary filmmakers to criticize or comment using copyrighted images and sound is just plain wrong. DOC is committed to fighting for an exception to this law for documentary filmmakers" says John Christou, Chair of DOC. What is most interesting in all of this is the fact that real Canadian content creators are the first to cry foul over the legislation being too strict. It highlights, once again, where Canadians do stand on the issues surrounding copyright law and why it differs from that of foreign corporate interests. The stereotype that persists in the copyright debate is that this copyright reform debate is a debate that pits all creators against all consumers. That is not the case one bit. It hasn't been before this legislation was introduced and this case shows that this isn't the reality now. The copyright reform legislation is more accurately described as a debate that pits Canadians against foreign interests like the big four record labels, Hollywood and several foreign software companies among others. Yes, there is the odd exception here and there, but for the most part, it is mainly domestic vs. foreign. Domestic interests typically want a relaxed copyright bill. Foreign interests want a tight copyright regime. This case also highlights what we've said earlier - that the big headache for the Canadian government on this bill is most likely going to be the rules on digital locks - specifically the provisions that say that digital locks override fair dealing exceptions. Let's just hope that the government keeps to their word and allow for some wiggle room to fix this flaw. Have a tip? Want to contact the author? You can do so by sending a PM via the forums or via e-mail at drew@zeropaid.com.

Apple Rumoured to Be Preparing to Sue Open Source Codec Developers

Drew Wilson — Sun, 02 May 2010 23:22:18 +0000

An e-mail reportedly from Steve Jobs has recently surfaced which suggests that Apple may be preparing to sue Theora and other open source video codecs. The dispute would revolve around patent laws.

It's been one wild weekend in news so far and the craziness doesn't seem to be stopping. An e-mail has been posted by Hugo Roy of the Free Software Foundation. According to CNET, the e-mail was in response to an open letter by Roy which disagreed with the use of proprietary video codecs. Steven Jobs issued a response:

All video codecs are covered by patents. A patent pool is being assembled to go after Theora and other "open source" codecs now. Unfortunately, just because something is open source, it doesn't mean or guarantee that it doesn't infringe on others patents. An open standard is different from being royalty free or open source.

Apparently, suing open source isn't for SEO anymore. One might be puzzled as to why, after all these years of open source video codecs have been around, has Apple chosen to litigate open source now? CNET suggests that Apple and Microsoft have been rolling out HTML5 and h.264 would be part of the HTML5 strategy. It's not hard to see that litigation might be a way of removing the competition. The case has its similarities to the way file-sharing has played out in the US. Business entities saw the potential of file-sharing, but litigation saw the end to the business side of file-sharing. That didn't mean the end of file-sharing, rather file-sharing moved further underground with many developers opening up the source code to their clients to ensure the clients would live on. The jump from over ground to underground wouldn't be as huge given that the codecs are already open source. The only difference is that development would move further underground should patent disputes occur. One could easily draw the conclusion that, with the way things are going, it'll eventually be illegal to even give your own content away for free. Have a tip? Want to contact the author? You can do so by sending a PM via the forums or via e-mail at drew@zeropaid.com.

MPAA Enjoys Even More Record Breaking Profits

Drew Wilson — Tue, 29 Dec 2009 07:56:32 +0000

It's doubtful the next anti-piracy press release would make mention of this, but apparently the MPAA is enjoying a record breaking Christmas box office this year - capping off a year of record breaking profits

The Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) have claimed that piracy costs hundreds of thousands of jobs and millions in lost revenue countless times in the past but even a Google search for "MPAA" and "losses" show the infamous blunder by the MPAA when they overstated college piracy rates. More recently, we've commented on the MPAA enjoying record breaking profits, but according to a report on Times Onlineeeee, the record breaking profits seen earlier this month was only the beginning. In the ten days over the Christmas holidays, the MPAA raked in a jaw dropping $617 Million globally. In the United States, the MPAA brought in $278 Million for the top 12 movies alone, making the July record of $261 million a distant memory. Two of the top four movies featured 3-D movies - Alvin and the Chipmunks - the Squeaquel and Avatar. No doubt 3-D animators everywhere are celebrating this record feet being thanks largely to those two movies. The thing to remember about movies that are computer generated is that the cost will go down as the technology improves. The technology improves when investments like these two movies are made. One could venture a guess that the cost of 3-D animated movies will go down if the popularity of 3-D movies were to go up - as these two films suggest. Another question one might ask is, how many profit records does it take before the MPAA admits that the harm due to alleged piracy is minimal to non-existent? With the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement rolling ahead that promises to usher in an era of three accusations and your out (in some slightly more sane cases, requiring a court order to disconnect on the third strike), it may lead some to wonder about the necessity of such legislation in the first place. These records might be one thing to seriously consider if the MPAA comes out of the secret white house meetings convincing regulators to implement a US version of the three strikes law (not much is known about the meeting due to the secrecy surrounding it though) Remind us again why the MPAA is after file-sharers who download movies for non-profit reasons. Have a tip? Want to contact the author? You can do so by sending a PM via the forums or via e-mail at drew@zeropaid.com.