The controversial film--like virtually every new release--has been circulating online for days. Early in the week, anti-Moore Web site MooreWatch.com posted a link to a pirated version of the film available elsewhere on a file-sharing network, noting that the director himself has publicly backed downloading the movie online.
The result has been a torrent of criticism from Moore supporters and his distribution company, Lions Gate Entertainment. The site was even the target of a denial-of-service attack a few days ago. But MooreWatch co-founder Jim Kenefick, a Web programmer in Hamden, Conn., is taking it in stride.
"Moore has said on many cases that he doesn't care if people download his movies or steal his book or sneak into his movies," Kenefick said. "If I can use his own words against him to be a bee in his bonnet, then I will."
The online flap may say more about the often-conflicting desires of creators and their business agents than it does about the political debate over Moore's film. While studios and record labels have uniformly excoriated unauthorised sharing of movies and music online, many artists--particularly those eager for the propagation of their political messages--have sent more mixed messages.
Moore's own comments came in an interview, clips of which have been floating around the Net at least since January. Kenefick said he was not able to verify the original source.
"I don't agree with copyright laws, and I don't have a problem with people downloading the movie and sharing it...as long as they're not trying to make a profit off my labour," Moore said in that interview, comparing file sharing to a person sharing a purchased DVD with a friend. "I make these movies and books and TV shows because I want things to change, and so the more people who get to see them, the better."
The downloadable version of "Fahrenheit 9/11" linked to by MooreWatch.com was on the BitTorrent file-sharing system, a popular peer-to-peer tool that is designed for the rapid, efficient distribution of large files. While the technology is used by software companies including Linux distributors as a way to circulate their products, it is also widely used to distribute first-run movies and TV shows.
Like many early pirated releases, the copy was shot by a handheld camcorder, with poor-quality audio and shaking visuals, Kenefick said.
The founders of the site, which launched in late 2002 after the release of "Bowling for Columbine," said they have not heard directly from Moore or Lions Gate about their link to the BitTorrent file. Several lawyers have contacted them with offers of support, if there is a legal question, Kenefick said.
A representative of Lions Gate did not immediately return calls for comment.
"MEDIA COMPANY ATTEMPTS TO STOP MIRAMAX UNIT FROM RELEASING MICHAEL MOORE DOCUMENTARY."
The above is a headline, not from 'a conspiracy rag', but CNN/MSNBC (see below).
Four points you fail to mention in your article (and which are of a type consistently omitted in mainstream reports of 'piracy'):
[1] non-profit copying of current events reports is legal when 'in the public interest',
[2] the film has been effectively suppressed,
[3] the general media have failed to properly report on these current events, and
[4] there is a significant risk they would continue to do so without the reality of end-user distribution as a balance.
Your readers in many instances may be already aware of these relevent facts, but I don't think it excuses you from mentioning them.
1. Non-profit copying of current events reports is legal when 'in the public interest'.
http://www.bileta.ac.uk/02papers/rowland.html
Apr 2002 COPYRIGHT IN THE NEWS
"Many copyright regimes contain certain exemptions and limitations on the protection offered to news reports .. the US Supreme Court suggested that `all facts - scientific, historical, biographical and news of the day ... are part of the public domain available to every person'."
".. while there may be no public interest in copying news reports purely for commercial purposes, a public interest could `be discerned in the public reporting of newsworthy current events.'"
There is certainly public interest in the dissemination of Moore's film.
2. The film has been effectively suppressed.
http://money.cnn.com/2004/05/05/news/fortune500/disney_moore/
May 2004 MEDIA COMPANY ATTEMPTS TO STOP MIRAMAX UNIT FROM RELEASING MICHAEL MOORE DOCUMENTARY.
Check out Mike Moore's web site for article after article telling the story of his struggle to get the film published at all.
Even the article above fails to mention that perhaps one reason why Disney ordered Miramax not to distribute the film, is that the film investigates Bush-Saudi connections, and that Disney itself has strong Saudi royal family connections.
Ever heard the phrase 'bite the hand that feeds you'? Companies don't like to distribute stories that will upset their owners. It's common sense.
http://www.bupipedream.com/012704/wire/w2.htm
Jan 2004 DISNEY SEEKS HELP FROM SAUDI PRINCE
"In the mid-1990s, the prince chipped in $300 million to help keep Euro Disney afloat. Now, Eisner would like another helping of his largess."
"Alwaleed acquired a 24 percent stake in Euro Disney, valued at about $300 million. He became the second-largest shareholder behind parent company Disney, whose stake was reduced to 39 percent."
"Last year, Forbes magazine ranked Alwaleed the fifth-richest man in the world, with a net worth of nearly $18 billion."
"He has held major stakes in companies such as Apple Computer Inc., AOL Time Warner Inc., News Corp. and Saks Inc., parent of retailer Saks Fifth Avenue."
"Alwaleed's ties to Disney have benefited the company in ways that transcend his investment. He became a kind of diplomat for Disney in the tricky politics of the Middle East."
3. The general media have failed to properly report on these current events.
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=fb3a0456.0405272108.3305e928%40posting.google.com
May 26, 2004 - FROM THE EDITORS, THE NEW YORK TIMES
New York Times Editors admitted in May that they had been taken for a ride on the US Administrations stories of Weapons of Mass Destruction and the case for war.
"... we have found a number of instances of coverage that was not as rigorous as it should have been. In some cases, information that was controversial then, and seems questionable now, was insufficiently qualified or allowed to stand unchallenged. Looking back, we wish we had been more aggressive in re-examining the claims as new evidence emerged -- or failed to emerge."
"Administration officials now acknowledge that they sometimes fel