Campaign Urges People To Send MPAA and RIAA Copied Currency 413
An anonymous reader writes "In response to the still-raging MPAA & RIAA, a kind of reverse piracy campaign has arisen. The "Send Them Your Money" campaign urges pirates and landlubbers alike to send scanned images of American currency to these agencies. According to the campaign's webpage, 'They've made it very clear that they consider digital copies to be just as valuable as the original.' The operation gained fame via sites like Reddit and Tumblr, inspiring citizens of other countries to send their legal tender to the MPAA and RIAA."
Genius. (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I think I might do the same.
Yes, it's genius. Clearly this is the same thing, because copies of money are identical to the original and can be used the same. Oh, wait... I just realized that this analogy is complete bullshit invented by a moron.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
That's kinda the point.
That you missed.
Now who's the moron?
Re:Genius. (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't think he did miss the point. A digital bit-for-bit copy of a movie has almost the same value as the original dvd/bluray/stream. On the other hand a photocopied/scanned/printed copy of a dollar bill has zero value. Not even the people who are pushing this idea believe the equivalency proposed. If they did they would be perfectly happy with receiving photocopied cash as pay for their day jobs. Or they would be willing to receive 4 gigabyte streams of random bits in lieu of actual copies of movies, as long as the titles of the files were correct. Neither of these are true, so this whole thing is bunk.
Re:Genius. (Score:5, Informative)
A digital bit-for-bit copy of a movie has almost the same value as the original dvd/bluray/stream
Or more. After all, it's probably going to be easier to transcode and use if it isn't on a medium where the reader enforced DRM. Playing back a ripped DVD has several advantages over playing back the original. For example, if I pause the movie for a few minutes and the disk spins down, I get a stutter when I resume with the DVD. I don't with the ripped version, even if it's a bitwise copy. If the machine goes into power-saving mode, the player needs to reauthenticate with the drive, and often fails so the movie skips back to the start with a DVD. It doesn't with the ripped version, even with the CSS intact, because the encryption is handled entirely in software. So, from the perspective of a user, the copy is more valuable...
Re:Genius. (Score:5, Insightful)
A digital bit-for-bit copy of a movie has almost the same value as the original dvd/bluray/stream
Or more. After all, it's probably going to be easier to transcode and use if it isn't on a medium where the reader enforced DRM. Playing back a ripped DVD has several advantages over playing back the original. For example, if I pause the movie for a few minutes and the disk spins down, I get a stutter when I resume with the DVD. I don't with the ripped version, even if it's a bitwise copy. If the machine goes into power-saving mode, the player needs to reauthenticate with the drive, and often fails so the movie skips back to the start with a DVD. It doesn't with the ripped version, even with the CSS intact, because the encryption is handled entirely in software. So, from the perspective of a user, the copy is more valuable...
Bingo, a DRM free version of movie has more value than the corresponding DVD/Blu-ray version.
I mean when you have people spending on recordable blu-rays that cost more than a pressed blu-ray you know that what the MPAA is legally offering is so crippled as to be less valuable than a pirate copy.
A ripped blu-ray film I can watch on any HD screen or computer monitor. There is no HDCP not contend with. I can transcode to whatever format I wish and use on any media player. And I can think of many more uses.
The time when the MPAA shouted jump and stupid masses of people gladly threw out perfectly functioning equipment to replace it with time limited revokable hardware is at an end. The pirates are effectively offering a superior product.
Ethics aside, why should one be stupid enough to be ass fucked by the MPAA ? Your nice blu-ray player that you spend 300 $ on ? After 2-3 years no more firmware updates so new movies won't play because of updated revocation lists. This is not a good business model for consumers. Piracy is a good thing for the consumer at least until those holywood dickheads start smelling the coffee. Drm free files with watermark of personal information. The way mp3 files are sold on itunes. Anything less and it is a non starter at least for me.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Genius. (Score:4, Insightful)
So, would you accept digital copies of movies as payment for your day job? Maybe 5000 copies of a movie on iTunes a year?
Oh, wait, you can't sell those. Seems they're worth exactly as much as a photocopy of a dollar bill...
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Genius. (Score:5, Insightful)
Dollars actually have a value -- just as every state controlled currency has a value -- they are required for you to pay your taxes. You cannot send a bushel of corn to the IRS on tax day. This means that the corn producer needs dollar bills. So people who need corn need to have dollar bills. And so on.
Re: (Score:3)
Let me demonstrate the worthlessness of a dollar... Imagine you have a billion dollars, but you will never come into contact with another person ever again.
Now, which would you prefer in this situation? A billion dollars, or a bushel of corn?
The value of a dollar is this: It is a tool that makes other people do things for you.
But, It only has value as long as people will perform for the dollar
Re: (Score:3)
The only thing that makes a dollar bill worth anything is your willingness to accept it. It is just a piece of paper. What makes photocopies of dollar bills any less valuable? You are really overly analyzing the metaphor that this campaign is using. The key point is to show solidarity. Not to actually make the MPAA happy by giving them photocopied money. Nobody actually expects the MPAA to see this photocopied money as valuable.
Re: (Score:3)
If he is over analyzing the metaphor it is because the metaphor is completely wrong. Here is their 'metaphor' in a nutshell: "You say people are willing to accept copies of songs the same as originals, so you should be willing to accept a copy of money as an original". It makes no sense at all. None. People ARE willing to accept copies of songs the same as originals, and no-one is willing to accept copies of money.
The thing that makes photocopies less valuable is that NO ONE WILL ACCEPT THEM from you
Re: (Score:3)
Actually, making them at all is a felony, unless you copy it at least 150% of the original size or at most 75% of the original size and only in black and white.
Re:Genius. (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Genius. (Score:5, Insightful)
A digital bit-for-bit copy of a movie has almost the same value as the original dvd/bluray/stream.
It has the same recreational/educational value (depending on the DVD) but your original DVD can be resold. It has monetary value. A digital copy, whether iTunes or Pirate Bay, has no monetary value at all, just like a photocopy of a five dollar bill.
Re:Genius. (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't think he did miss the point. A digital bit-for-bit copy of a movie has almost the same value as the original dvd/bluray/stream.
Yeah, "zero".
If you make a million copies of a movie you bought for a dollar, are you now a millionaire?
Of course you aren't. One copy is worth the same as a million copies.
There's only one number in mathematics that retains the same value no matter what you multiply it by.
That's the fundamental issue, now: creation of the work is still valuable, and access to the work is still valuable, but copies are no longer valuable at all. Guess which of those three things copyright gives exclusive privelege to?
Remember, they're not selling creation (except on Kickstarter), or access (except at the movie theater). Most of what they're selling is COPIES. Absolutely worthless copies. Which people only actually buy for three reasons:
1) They want to fund creation and understand that buying copies is the only way to do that under the current stupid business model.
or
2) They're worried about getting caught doing something illegal
or
3) They're not very bright.
The point of this campaign is to point out the total lack of value that digial copies have. People who don't get this won't get it, but it's still irrevocably true. Digital copies cost nothing to make and you lose nothing when you destroy them. Xeroxed money is actually worth MORE, since it costs something to make and you lose something when you destroy it.
Re:Genius. (Score:4, Interesting)
If you print up a trillion dollars worth of perfect copies of money, are you now a trillionaire? Of course not. It is just paper.
If you distribute that trillion dollars worth of perfect fakes to a hundred million people, have you done any harm? Hell yes. All money just became worth a whole lot less. The people who legitimately own the money supply (ie all of us) have been harmed.
1. You've made perfect copies of a physical object, so those copies have a discrete value.
2. The copies represent an even greater value -- that is to say, each copy GRANTS ACCESS to a specific unit of real value. If you falsely get access to something valuable, that hurts the people who have legitimate access to that value.
Does illegally copying a song reduce access to everyone else who has a legitimate copy? No. They can still listen all the way to the end of their own copies, anytime they like.
(Unless they have a DRM'd copy, then they might not be able to access the content they legally own a copy of).
If digital copies have no value, why do so many people want them (to the point that they are willing to break the law to get them)?
They don't. They want access to the content. Here's the problem: giving someone a copy gives them access to the content. But since the copy has no value, the person with access can create infinite copies at will. In fact, they have to make and destroy multiple copies every time they want to access the content.
This is why there is no technical solution for DRM: you have to grant access to make copies, and deny access to make copies, to the same party simultaneously This works perfectly with physical copies, since one person having access to that copy automatically means someone else doesn't, and there is an inherent cost to making more physical copies. Not so with digital copies.
Even if, science-fictionally-hypothetically here, you could get it to work, it wouldn't make the copies valuable; it would just allow you to conveniently monetize access to the work, sort of the way a theater does.
Your point that digital copies have zero value is demonstrably 100% false.
You are 100% wrong. They have no intrinsic value at all. Period. All value assigned to them is based on crude modifications to laws designed for physical objects.
Creating them is valuable, and accessing them is valuable, but copying them is not valuable. You cannot make them valuable by saying so over and over.
Value is determined by the desirability of something, not its cost to produce. Is a gold nugget found in a stream while fishing any less valuable than one that was mined at great expense?
So, you were in Econ 101, and the professor was talking about the relationship between "supply and demand", and, what... you woke up during "and"?!
DIGITAL FILES ARE NOT PHYSICAL OBJECTS. THEY DO NOT BEHAVE THE WAY PHYSICAL OBJECTS BEHAVE. Is a gold nugget that you created by waving your magic wand at it worth anything? If everyone has a magic wand, the answer is "no." If everyone can create gold nuggets with a wave of a magic wand, gold nuggets become worthless. You cannot sell them at any price under that condition.
Infinite supply always drives price down to infinitely small, unless demand is also infinite.
Re: (Score:3)
If you print up a trillion dollars worth of perfect copies of money, are you now a trillionaire? Of course not. It is just paper.
If you distribute that trillion dollars worth of perfect fakes to a hundred million people, have you done any harm? Hell yes. All money just became worth a whole lot less. The people who legitimately own the money supply (ie all of us) have been harmed.
Sounds exactly like waht the Federal Reserve does. They print a whole lot of money, which is based on and backed by nothing, then distribute that to a whole lot of banks and well connected people adn businesses. Then all the money the rest of us hold is worth less. The buying power of what we have decreases as that new unbacked money enters the money supply. Those who get it first, the rich and well connected, get to spend that money before it's introduction reduces the value of currently held money.
The Fed
Re:Genius. (Score:4, Insightful)
That's kinda the point.
That you missed.
Now who's the moron?
I'm still missing the point, then. Is this not an attempt to make a statement that copied money is equivalent to copied files? Please explain what I've missed, since I'm so stupid and you're so smart.
It's making a statement that by the way MPAA & RIAA considers virtual copies of a film/game/song to be worth as much as the original, you might as well put the same logic to currency. Which doesn't make sense the same way that virtual copies of a film/game/song being worth as much as the original.
Re:Genius. (Score:5, Funny)
That's kinda the point.
That you missed.
Now who's the moron?
I'm still missing the point, then. Is this not an attempt to make a statement that copied money is equivalent to copied files? Please explain what I've missed, since I'm so stupid and you're so smart.
It's making a statement that by the way MPAA & RIAA considers virtual copies of a film/game/song to be worth as much as the original, you might as well put the same logic to currency. Which doesn't make sense the same way that virtual copies of a film/game/song being worth as much as the original.
I can get the same entertainment value from a copy of a movie or song as I can from the original. It can even be argued that a copy is even more valuable than the original, because it's easier to use on whatever device I prefer due to lack of DRM. I didn't enjoy the movie or song any less because it was a copy since the quality of the experience was the same or better.
I can only use a photocopy of money to wipe my ass with since I cannot even buy toilet paper with it. I do not enjoy the copy at all because I couldn't use it as currency and all it did is hurt my ass.
How are those two things at all similar?
Re:Genius. (Score:5, Funny)
I live in Zimbabwe, you insensitive clod!!!!!!
Re: (Score:3)
The only thing absurd in this is the ridiculous arguments that people (like you) use to defend it. What sense does 'if the two are equivalent they would be happy to have copies of our money' make? Why would they (or anyone else) accept a scanned image of money? It has nothing to do with 'physical equivalence'. It has to do with thing being offered being entirely worthless.
And where exactly do they equate copying with physical taking anyway? Lemme guess, you're one of those people who insist the word 's
Re: (Score:3)
Oh, you mean like identity theft and theft of service, which do not 'take' anything from the victim? The word you are looking for (and which the RIAA, etc, never use) is larceny.
Re:Genius. (Score:4, Insightful)
Are you actually trying to say that no-one ever pirated a single song that they would have purchased had the pirated copy not been available? That position is equally as absurd as claiming that every download is a lost sale (a position I don't think they've ever taken legally). The truth is somewhere in between there, but it is impossible to tell exactly where.
Yes, people should be able to make their own copies for their own personal use. And yes, DRM sucks. But let's be honest here, DRM came LONG (many decades) after people demonstrated their willingness to make and distribute copies.
For the discussion to move anywhere, both sides need to adjust their thinking. The media companies should make clear that making copies for your own personal use is OK. But, at the same time, sites the TPB and file sharers should be denounced just as harshly as the media companies for forcing the media companies to act in their own best interest so harshly.
Much as the pirates hate to admit it, the media companies have changed. The arguments used to be 'if we could just download instead of buying physical CDs, we wouldn't pirate'. Then it was 'if we could buy a single song for $1 instead of a whole CD, we wouldn't pirate'. For more than a decade that has been possible. Then it was 'well, if we could hear the song first we wouldn't pirate'. Most sites selling songs let you sample them before purchase. Then it was 'well, there is DRM on the songs, so I can't play it on all my devices'. Most sites now sell DRM-free songs. On the other hand, even with those changes, piracy still continues, just as rampant as ever. Until people are willing to admit that piracy IS a problem, you can expect the media companies to just continue digging their heels in.
Re: (Score:3)
I can only use a photocopy of money to wipe my ass with since I cannot even buy toilet paper with it. I do not enjoy the copy at all because I couldn't use it as currency and all it did is hurt my ass.
How are those two things at all similar?
More similar then you think. Money will hurt your ass just as much as the photocopy when used as toilet paper.
Re:Genius. (Score:5, Insightful)
I think the point is more along the lines of copies of an already purchased game should be worth as much as the copied currency.
I disagree. There is no technical way to make a digital copy worth anything, and the laws required to make people behave as if it were worth something are utterly destructive to freedom. Case in point, every single law we have passed or tried to pass to make digital copies worth something.
A movie DVD is nothing but a digital copy of the original film. Does a blank DVD has the same value as a movie DVD? Of course not, the movie DVD is more valuable because of the digital copy of the movie contained on it. The value of that movie to you is constant whether you get it on DVD, iTunes or TPB. Only the delivery mechanism has changed. Either they're all worth something, or they're all worth nothing; you can't have it both ways.
DRM is a different issue, and it sucks.
Re:Genius. (Score:5, Informative)
Ok, I'll try to make it simple.
The idea behind the campaign is that the MPAA thinks that the copies that float about the internet is money lost to them. Because the value of that copy is the same as the one they would have sold to you. Value, by definition, is determined by the one who WANTS a commodity, not the person who wants to get rid of it. Because the value of a commodity is by definition only what a prospective interested party is able and willing to pay for it.
Allow me an example. I want a bigger TV. But not enough to pay the price a bigger TV would cost. Hence I am not willing to pay the price for it and thus no sale happens. As you can see, my willingness to pay the price, not the seller's willingness to sell it for a certain price, determines whether a sale happens.
People copy content. I hope I'm not spilling breaking news here, I guess it's pretty much common knowledge by now that this happens. The question now is whether this constitutes a lost sale. That in turn is determined by the question whether people would be willing to pay the price they would alternatively have to pay if they could not copy.
The content industry now claims that they do. It is very likely, though, that the number of people able and willing to pay the price would be much lower than the 100% they claim. Will nobody buy? Certainly not, there's of course people who would buy if they cannot copy, but I would guess we're a far cry from the windfall they claim.
And the price for that, the loss of the internet as we know it, is far too steep for such a petty gain.
The idea behind the protest is now exactly that claim. That the copy someone made is a lost sale, and hence lost money to them. So it's only logical to send them a copy of money for the copy of their content. Sounds reasonable if you ask me.
Re:Genius. (Score:5, Funny)
Does a blank DVD has the same value as a movie DVD? Of course not, the movie DVD is more valuable
Depends on the movie.. at least you can put your own content on a blank :)
Re: (Score:3)
A movie DVD is nothing but a digital copy of the original film. Does a blank DVD has the same value as a movie DVD?
It has MORE value, if you already have another copy of that movie.
Of course not,
Of course wrong.
the movie DVD is more valuable because of the digital copy of the movie contained on it.
It's valuable because it GRANTS ACCESS to the digital copy of the movie contained on it, yes. Access is valuable. Copies are not. Which is more valuable, a blank DVD, or a movie DVD that's region-coded to a region you don't have a player for?
The value of that movie to you is constant whether you get it on DVD, iTunes or TPB. Only the delivery mechanism has changed. Either they're all worth something, or they're all worth nothing; you can't have it both ways.
Correct. They are all worth something if you want access to the work, and they are worth nothing if you don't want access to the work.
That last bit is important because:
You don't require a
Re: (Score:3)
It can even be argued that a copy is even more valuable than the original, because it's easier to use on whatever device I prefer due to lack of DRM.
Really? So if you delete the digital copy, you actually lose more value than if you destroy the original?
What if you make a hundred digital copies, and then delete them? OH MY GOD, you've just lost, like, thousands of dollars!
Don't be inane. When you refer to the "original" you are really talking about the master studio copy of the performance. _Everything_ else is a copy.
Since you appear to need it spelled out, the value is in the entertainment and enjoyment provided by the copy. I think I can put this in simpler terms.
Two people wish to be entertained for two and a half minutes. They both inexplicably love Sanjaya. Person A buys a track from Google Music. Person B copies the track from person A. They both independently listen to the music and are entertained. They have both received _value_. Person A paid $1 to receive that value. Person B paid nothing. One of them is an entitled little shit. Guess which one?
The only reason your argument *sounds* correct is because you have dumbed down this complex problem way too much.
Please consider the following usage cases - using your above example:
1. If person A wants to listen to Sanjaya twice, i.e. she wants to be entertained for 5 minutes, not 2.5; should she pay more?
2. If person A listens to Sanjaya along with family or friends, should she pay more?
3. If person A plays the song in her restaurant, should she pay more?
4. If person A creates a personal copy of the song
Re: (Score:3)
But the physical medium is hardly worth anything to begin with. So where's the value? In the combination of content on the medium? Shouldn't that same combination also have value on a magnetic disk?
The only consistent answer is that a copy of information has no value on its own, and that the real value lies in access to the content, a notion merrily encapsulated in the idea of licensing.
Re:Genius. (Score:4, Insightful)
I think there's another point here. Maybe it wasn't made clear in TFA (I dunno; I'm a Slashdotter, why would I read TFA?), but maybe the object lesson is "HERE is the real meaning of counterfeiting!"
Which is also the real element of risk. If you copy currency well enough, you've run afoul of laws which make copyright violation look like a picnic at the beach. And if don't copy the currency well enough, you're failing to make any point other than "RAAAWR ME MAD AT YOU". You might as well just TP their headquarters.
Re:Genius. (Score:5, Interesting)
I think you missed the point. If you make a copy of a dollar bill, you can't use the copy. It is by definition not as valuable as the original. If you make a copy of a CD, you can use the copy. It is just as valuable as the original. Only a moron wouldn't see the difference.
If I make a perfect, bit for bit copy of a dollar bill, it is worth almost exactly as much as the original. Because by saying I made it perfectly, I have said that it is undetectable and I can pass it without fear of getting caught. It is worth ever so imperceptibly less than the original, because I have increased the money supply, leading to some inflation. And note that I didn't just devalue my new shiny dollar bill, I devalued all the money in circulation.
Put in those terms, the government's anti-counterfeiting laws and the MPAA/RIAA anti-copying campaigns seem very much equivalent - both are designed to preserve the scarcity of something that has little intrinsic value, but instead has value in part because of its scarcity. Allowing unrestrained production of either leads to devaluation.
So I think that this publicity stunt of sending images of currency to the RIAA is just proving their point - copying is bad, m'kay?
Re:Genius. (Score:5, Funny)
I just copied this text from another comment:
Whoosh!
Re:Genius. (Score:5, Funny)
I just copied this text from another comment:
Whoosh!
--
+1 IDisagreeSoHeMustBeATrollOrAnAstroturferOrAShill
Re:Genius. (Score:4, Funny)
I made a more or less faithful digital representation of a different comment and then changed the specific wording so as to make it not an exact duplicate of the original one in order to avoid any sort of copyright infringement lawsuit, and I feel as though it was time well spent.
Re: (Score:5, Informative)
Just make sure your money is slightly bigger than real money or you might end up in Guantanamo bay.
Re: (Score:4, Informative)
I was going to say, isn't this a felony?
Sounds like an easy way to get everyone that opposes you in a whole heap of trouble, all in one hit. So let's not do them any favors, eh?
Re:Felony (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:4, Informative)
That won't work.
Scan it in, and add in the text in a white box "This is a copy. Not worth the same as the original, is it?"
Distributing a copy of money, even if the size is different to make it clear it is fake is sometimes considered counterfeit by the secret service, particularly if someone is already gunning for you. If you include a very clear disclaimer on the bill, any case should be thrown out by the courts because it will be obvious there is no intent to pass off your copy as the real deal.
Re: (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:4, Interesting)
If you include a very clear disclaimer on the bill, any case should be thrown out by the courts because it will be obvious there is no intent to pass off your copy as the real deal.
Except that by sending the copy to **AA as "legal tender" and trying to pay for your copy of digital content with it, you are unambiguously showing an intent to pass off the copy as real.
There was (is?) a guy who hand-draws copies of paper money and uses them to pay for things. He has to be very clear up-front with anyone he deals with, "this is a piece of artwork that I am selling you, if you want to buy it", and then he can use that money to pay for his stuff. If he simply handed it over in exchange for goods he'd be counterfeiting. It doesn't matter how bad the copy is (and his were pretty good), it is still counterfeiting if you try to pass a copy as real.
Re: (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Fortunately there isn't anything useful on the edges of the money, so you don't really have to worry about scanning that.
>^_^<
Re: (Score:4, Funny)
i thought scanners won't scan money? (Score:3)
i keep reading how scanners and copying machines are programmed not to scan or copy money
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Just scanned a £12 note with no problem!
And you're now as guilty of infringing the Bank of England's copyright as I was when I scanned that 9 bob note.
Seriously the tenner in my wallet does have "© the Governor and Company of the Bank of England 2000" printed on the back of it.
Re:i thought scanners won't scan money? (Score:5, Interesting)
I actually worked for a copier company once upon a time.
When users tried to make copies of money the copiers would display an error code and lock the machine until a technician was called at which time we were "required" to inform the manufacturer and the authorities.
We only ever ran into this issue twice. Once at an office which though it would be funny to make copies of dollar bills with the employees photos on them and another time at a police station which needed to make copies of counterfeit bills for use as evidence in a trial.
Re:i thought scanners won't scan money? (Score:4, Insightful)
We only ever ran into this issue twice.... at a police station which needed to make copies of counterfeit bills for use as evidence in a trial.
that's hilarious.
Re: (Score:2)
Like cake, that has always been a lie. Along with the embedded fingerprint that is supposedly able to trace a copy back to a specific machine.
However it is very hard to make a passable copy using these devices, even the very high quality ones, as the paper (often actually a fabric and not paper) and inks (colour and texture) used, level of fine detail and other features such as metal woven strips make it almost impossible to scan or print without using a wet ink printing press.
Re:i thought scanners won't scan money? (Score:5, Informative)
No, this is very real in color photocopiers and color laser printers. They tend to place a copy of their serial number at regular intervals on color printouts, in such a faint yellow that it's impossible for the human eye to see. This makes any color printout traceable to the machine that printed it. Commonly in use by law enforcement for tracking things like death threats, ransom notes, etc.
Google for "hidden yellow serial number" and find lots of information from reputable sources. First hit I glanced at just now is from PC World [pcworld.com]. Good quote from there, Peter Crean, a senior research fellow at Xerox, says his company's laser printers, copiers and multifunction workstations, such as its WorkCentre Pro series, put the "serial number of each machine coded in little yellow dots" in every printout. The millimeter-sized dots appear about every inch on a page, nestled within the printed words and margins. "It's a trail back to you, like a license plate," Crean says.
No tinfoil hat necessary, this one's for real. Last time I looked this up I ran across a technician that works at one of those in R&D telling how every one of their color copiers has a dedicated board inline in the image processing chain whose only job is to "insert" the serial number into the image stream before it goes to the imager.
Re:i thought scanners won't scan money? (Score:4, Funny)
Yeah I tried that once, it said something had performed an illegal operation and my whole PC shut down!
Re:i thought scanners won't scan money? (Score:5, Informative)
Actually, they tend to have the firmware, yes...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EURion_constellation
Re: (Score:2)
Re:i thought scanners won't scan money? (Score:5, Interesting)
Ages ago I was teaching a bunch of people how to work scanners in a training session. We scanned a whole bunch of stuff and most people were clearly able to see that commercially printed content doesn't look appreciably different when scanned at 600dpi or 1200dpi. Eventually I had the bright idea to try to scan a $20 bill since they're actually fine fabric and not paper. It scanned fine at 600dpi and previewed OK at higher settings, but every time I tried to scan it at a higher setting, the area of the bill would be replaced by black pixels in the finished image. My students and I decided it was probably an anti-counterfeiting measure and after about 40 minutes of experimentation with things like discoloring the bills, tearing them so they no longer resembled whole bills (we used a couple $1s for that), zooming in on small areas etc. we determined that whatever was going on was actually pretty tough to fool.
Re:i thought scanners won't scan money? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
easy to do have some sort of hard to see pattern that is hard see with the naked eye but can be picked up in a scan sort of a DO NOT COPY watermark.
Re: (Score:3)
You are aware that vending machines, ATM's etc do this sort of thing aren't you?
Re: (Score:3)
I think it might be more like 'make it a bitch to print'. Copying the images is easy and possible. Printing the very fine details takes special presses and papers (linen in many cases). And of course watermarks etc.
I was at a Schnuks grocery store in Saint Louis MO (Clayton actually) one night about 5 years ago and there were a bunch of the managers holding up a bill and examining it etc. When I asked they told me it was a counterfeit $50 dollar bill. One guy held it up to the light for me to see the waterm
Re:i thought scanners won't scan money? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
EURion constellation (Score:4, Informative)
Too bad they're trying to make scanning $ illegal (Score:4, Informative)
Haven't they found proprietary code/hardware in scanners that obscures images of money ?
I would think that a "law abiding" group like the MPAA/RIAA would report people to the Treasury department for counterfeiting .
Re: (Score:2)
Valuable Images (Score:5, Funny)
Could I send them a drawing of a spider instead?
Re: (Score:2)
Sadly I don't think spiders are valuable enough. But maybe a cow or something? One with just three udders of course, so they can't beat you in digital milk business.
Re:Valuable Images (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Banks do this, sort of. (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Banks do this, sort of. (Score:5, Informative)
I don't think so. If everyone went to the bank and asked to withdraw all accounts, banks would not have the physical assets to do so.
Banks are required to keep at least a specific percentage of their deposits on hand to deal with withdrawals. For the rest, they'll tell you to come back tomorrow or the day after and they'll be ordering what they need from either another branch or the Federal Reserve. In either case, there is a physical object that you can get for that digital ledger entry, you just might not be able to get it the moment you demand it. If you look carefully, you'll note that your bank probably has a clause in their terms of service that tell you a time and quantity limit on taking your money out as cash.
See here [wordpress.com], or here [wikipedia.org]. It is called "fractional reserve".
Just an FYI (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
Printed reproductions, including photographs of paper currency, checks, bonds, postage stamps, revenue stamps, and securities of the United States and foreign governments (except under the conditions previously listed) are violations of Title 18, Section 474 of the United States Code.
If you never print it, does it still violate the code? Something to ask the local treasury department, I guess.
Re:Just an FYI (Score:5, Interesting)
or just ask your accounting department what they think. *cough*
Years ago I used to work in the film biz and we did a good number of commercials for the State Lottery.
There was always a call for lots of "money" floating about in various forms.
We got the most realistic "fake" money that was available from The Earl Hays Press [theearlhayspress.com] in California.
Their website does not list it but I'm pretty sure they still provide it. It looks pretty real unless you compare it to another "real" bill.
Once, when I was visiting, someone there told me that the current incarnation was as far as they could go. They had apparently made something a bit more realistic, the Secret Service decided it was "too" good and confiscated the plates.
Anyways, for some jobs when we only needed a few bills to film for something we STILL had to use "fake" money.
The accounting dept people at the Ad Agency would always demand it to cover their asses. They read the rules as "any photographic reproduction" to apply to filming money so it could appear on a TV set as being involved in counterfitting.
So then I would bring out the "best" fake money available and they would complain that it did not look real enough. (???)
I once did this dance back and forth on a job and finally relented and showed them the most advanced "fake" money available for movie use, -it just became available this month-!
It was a real $100 bill. They fell for it and filmed it.
No one went to jail or lost their job.
Re: (Score:2)
"Anyone who manufactures a counterfeit U.S. coin in any denomination above five cents is subject to the same penalties as all other counterfeiters. "
so we can make pennies and nickels all we want????
Better not make the copy look too good. (Score:2)
You'll be accused of counterfeiting.
Of course the best option is to just throw the letter in the trash. I doubt the MPAA/RIAA will come after you, since they are just using a shotgun approach to extort money from the millions of uploaders they have in their database. They are hoping to dupe you into paying $5000. (Like the nigerian lottery scammers.)
Oh and send some real money to the people who deserve it. Like JMS of Babylon 5 or the Writer/Artist of the Walking Dead, because they certainly aren't gett
Re:Better not make the copy look too good. (Score:5, Informative)
The copy has to be one-sided
The copy has to be the wrong size. It has to be at least 75% smaller or 150% larger than an actual bill
You have to destroy the negatives, graphic files, or “digitized storage mediums” after their final use
INAAL so if you go to jail after following this advice, I'll just laugh at you. But i read it on the internet.
Re: (Score:2)
Great idea (Score:2)
What a bunch of genius's. Now, instead of just being a pirate and having the RIAA & MPAA after you, you can also be a counterfeiter and have the feds after you.
It doesn't have to be a good copy (Score:2)
Given that the **AA are likely to sue even if the filename sounds like one of their movies/songs, and given that mp3/ogg etc. are lossy codecs, you don't have to send them a scan of a bill at all. Just scrawl "Ten Dollars" on a piece of paper, scan it, and send it in.
That should have exactly the same effect.
FTFA (Score:3, Informative)
“Now wait,” you say, “isn’t copying money illegal?” Not if you do it right. Reproducing images of money (in the United States at least) is perfectly legal under three conditions:
The copy has to be one-sided
The copy has to be the wrong size. It has to be at least 75% smaller or 150% larger than an actual bill
You have to destroy the negatives, graphic files, or “digitized storage mediums” after their final use
Not a good idea... (Score:2)
In the US at least it's a federal crime to copy or scan and print (potentially even just scan) US currency, so this is one of those lame things you really don't want to do.
You can end up with a visit from the FBI and potentially even prosecution if someone simply finds your copies in the trash and reports it.
Just fooling around or having no criminal intent probably will not protect you, and the RIAA/MPAA will probably be more than happy to report you if you mail copies to them.
G.
Mark It So It's Obviously Fake (Score:2)
Make sure you put a mark on it as well as change the size so people can't mistake it as being real, even if you think it is obvious it is a copy. The secret service (in charge of counterfeiting as well as protecting the pres') doesn't have a sense of humour in these matters.
On a side note, I read a story outlining one of the most successful counterfeiters ever. When they arrested him he was an old man. He'd been printing and passing off one dollar bills and five dollar bills for a few decades before he was
Funny! (Score:2)
Doesn't work (Score:5, Insightful)
A digital copy of a music file still has inherent value to the recipient, while a copy of a bank note does not - all you are doing is showing them you are as petulant as you consider them to be.
The value of a music file is in the content, not the form of the file while the value of a bank note is in the ability to exchange it for other things, not the art work on the note - copies work fine in one case, and not at all in the other.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Doesn't work (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
No one's suggesting that the people behind this campaign are actually trying to pay with photocopied money. But they are trying to suggest that copies of music & movies hold no more value than copies of money, and that that makes their actions okay. It's a childish, idiotic argument.
Re: (Score:3)
Actually, on British Pound notes, it specifically states: "I promise to pay the bearer on demand the sum of x" [bankofengland.co.uk]. Therefore, a digital copy should have exactly the same value. It's a promise of some money.
More Accurate (Score:3)
Just send them a digital copy of the copyrighted material. It has exactly the same value as the one you kept.
Heck, send them two or thee copies. That way they make a bigger profit. They'll like that.
Be careful (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re:It's illegal (Score:4, Informative)