They lose again
and that's Afact.
Another chapter in the iiNet versus the movie industry saga (colloquially known as “AFACT versus iiNet", after the Australian Federation Against Copyright Theft, the industry’s mouthpiece) is closed, with the Federal Court dismissing the industry’s appeal against the ISP. The plaintiffs (Roadshow Films and a number of other …
and that's Afact.
They won't let the freetards reduce the profit margins of the media luvvies,
cocaine sinus remedies and gerbil insertions are expensive pastimes.
... and in Senator Conroy they've got the right nobend in parliament to change the law for them.
It's full of dicks, it gets in the way, and only is used by the inadequate.
AFACT is, in fact, the industry codpiece.
Some Introductory Excerpts:
'Hollywood Accounting' Losing In The Courts
from the math-is-hard dept
If you follow the entertainment business at all, you're probably well aware of "Hollywood accounting," whereby very, very, very few entertainment products are technically "profitable," even as they earn studios millions of dollars. A couple months ago, the Planet Money folks did a great episode explaining how this works in very simple terms. The really, really, really simplified version is that Hollywood sets up a separate corporation for each movie with the intent that this corporation will take on losses. The studio then charges the "film corporation" a huge fee (which creates a large part of the "expense" that leads to the loss). The end result is that the studio still rakes in the cash, but for accounting purposes the film is a money "loser" -- which matters quite a bit for anyone who is supposed to get a cut of any profits.
For example, a bunch of you sent in the example of how Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix, under "Hollywood accounting," ended up with a $167 million "loss," despite taking in $938 million in revenue.
Hollywood Accounting and Average Joe
p2pnet view MPAA:- We’re finally making progress on the real criminals of entertainment piracy. The MPAA ia losing court case after court case using their infamous ‘Hollywood Accounting‘, and losing consistently, primarily because jury members are finally realizing how sleazy these members of the MPAA really are.
Honestly, how does New Line Cinema think it can gross nine Billion, that’s Billion, on the Lord of the Rings Trilogy worldwide, and then try and weasel out of paying J.R. Tolkien estate for the idea, and Peter Jackson for directing the movie, claiming it ‘lost’ 120 Million? This is probably the reason behind the delay of creating ‘The Hobbit’ movie. If I were Peter, I wouldn’t direct any movie until I got paid for the previous one.
Hollywood Accounting is where the MPAA (insert big 6 assholes here) create a corporation for each movie, ie Lord of the Rings, LLC, and then purposely use that entity to numerically absorb money, and to reflect a loss by creatively making up numbers for advertisement, distribution, additional licensing and/or copyrights for the particular movie. They illegally and grossly bloat these numbers as ‘expenses’ for the Studio to allegedly ‘pay’ from the gross of the movie itself.
After ‘New Line Cinemas’ paid expenses to ‘Lord of the Rings, LLC’, there apparently just wasn’t enough money left to pay the director, or the estate of J.R. Tolkien, who owns the copyrights on the idea, and wrote the books. This ensures that stakeholders in the movie itself get the ’steak’ of the profits, whereas the entitled entities, like the writer, producer, rights holder, etc, are left with the ‘peas’, if that. Typically they only get to lick the plate after the fatcat assholes at the MPAA get their ill-gotten gains first.
The End of Hollywood Accounting?
Will 1+1 someday = 2?
The WGA, the Teamsters and California State Senator Sheila Kuehl have just announced the introduction of the "Fair Market Value Bill." The bill seeks to prevent studios from selling programming to sister companies for below market value. This particular strain of Hollywood accounting is designed to shift profits away from the studios (where they must be shared with talent and producers and serve as a basis for pension and health contributions) to networks, where they may be enjoyed without the pesky need to pay one's "partners."
I bet Xerox are letting out a sigh of relief, after all photocopier manufacturers have been enabling copyright breaches for years....... or is that the user..... i can never remember
driver, stop the world I want to get off
Now that a trial judge has ruled and an appellate court has confirmed that the ISP didn't authorize or otherwise contribute to copyright infringement, and that the ISP is in fact protected under the safe harbor provisions written in to the law, can this ISP sue the holy fuck out of these half twits for violating the safe harbor provisions by suing them?
But it was a split decision.
2-1 for iiNet, with the two in the majority disagreeing with each other as to the legal reasoning, as well as both granting leave for appeal.
That pretty much guarantees this will go to the High Court, where afaik it could go either way. Especially given that the judiciary aren't exactly known for being tech savvy.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2017