Slashdot Mirror
MPAA Makes Unauthorized Copies of DVD
An anonymous reader writes "There's a story on ArsTechnica about how the MPAA has admitted that they made unauthorized copies of a movie. That in itself is a bit of tasty hypocrisy, but if it turns out that they ripped a DVD, then the MPAA could find themselves in violation of the DMCA." From the article: "According to Mark Lemley, a professor at the Stanford Law School, the MPAA may have been within its rights to make copies of the film. Given that the MPAA's intent isn't financial gain and that the whole situation may rise above the level of trading barbs through the media into legal action, making a copy may be justified. Personally, I can't see any justification for an organization such as the MPAA ignoring a directive from a copyright owner, but IANAL." Update: 01/24 19:52 GMT by Z : Made title more accurate.
.... The MPAA will have to sue themselves?
This is my opinion. To make sure you don't steal it, it's covered by the DMCA.
...I'd like you to meet kettle.
The "no profit" loophole was closed by the DMCA. Now the MPAA is fleeing to a locked door. This is going to be fun.
"Scientists don't change their minds, they just die." -- Max Planck
Those movies you can download or share on torrent sites? They aren't copied for financial gain either.
I'm a writer, a poet, a genius, I know it. I don't buy software, I grow it.
"Not even MPAA employees give a **** about DMCA".
:)
There
Mary-Kate and Ashley in " New York Minute"
If we want to protect against this kind of illegal behavior, clearly we need technology like Palladium/TCPA to protect ourselves from these criminals in the MPAA!
Given that the MPAA's intent isn't financial gain
so I can rip a few thousand copies of the latest sucky movie and as long as I don't gain financially, I can distribute at my discretion.
Let me laugh a little longer...
From TFA: "The Motion Picture Association of America was caught with its pants down, admitting to making unauthorized copies of the documentary This Film Is Not Yet Rated in advance of this week's Sundance Film Festival."
"MPAA made copies of the film to distribute them to its employees"
It doesn't get any more ironic than this...
Was the copy of the DVD that was submitted to the MPAA encoded with CSS? They haven't violated the DMCA if it wasn't encoded with CSS.
This guy's the limit!
Not to rain on the *AA hatefest, but the original article offers a more complete and less biased account of what happened.
Depending on how many copies they made and who they gave them to, there does seem to be some grounds for a fair use defense.
Being that the MPAA isn;t making copies of movies for monetary gain, I can see why it would not break the DMCA. However, does that mean that if I download a movie and not sell it, I am fine? Personally, I will always pay for all the movies I get, but this brings up a good point. Why are they able to make copies of movies, but if I want to make a backup DVD of scratched DVDs or DVDs that have seen better days, it would be considered breaking the law?
-- Josh
"Whoopie! Man, that may have been a small one for Neil, but that's a long one for me!" - Pete Conrad
So a movie comes along that the MPAA doesn't like and suddenly all their gripes about destroying the industry with copyright violations doesn't matter?
I would propose that indeed the creators of this film have lost money, and that all of those employees who received copies were almost absolutely going to have purchased the movie (since it is about them).
I would hope that both criminal and civil suits are filed. As they potentially broke criminal law by cracking any protection in making the copy.
I hope this is widely publicized, as it is clear evidence that this group does not care about the law or moral implications of the piracy, but rather is only concerned in doing what serves them best.
I for one will be sending emails to the producers of my favorite news shows urging them to cover the story, hopefully all of you will do the same.
Big ones, small ones, some as big as yer 'ead!
Give 'em a twist, a flick o' the wrist...
It was Kirby Dick's documentary entitled "This Film is not yet rated". The thing is that he had EXPLICITELY asked them NOT to make copies of the movie.
What makes it even sweeter is that the MPAA was one of the organisations pushing for Statutory damages for copyright infringement; which they got as part of the Sonny Bono Copyright Act. Which basically says even if the copying resulted in no financial loss for the rights holder, you must pay a basic amount of damages. I believe it's something like several thousand dollars per unauthorised copy.
-EvilMagnus
Since the movie had parts in it about the employees it was copied and given to, there's a good chance it was legal. The DMCA is another matter, but who's going to prosecute them?
Typical, this just furthers the opinion that the MPAA can get away with everything: IP or personal rights be damned.
Using GNU/Linux -- Windows-free zone!
Meself, I'm thinking more of Priests telling their congregations not to have illicit sex... ;)
With spending like this, exactly what are "conservatives" conserving?
Ahem, wouldn't that be considered a verbal contract? He submits the DVD and says "Do not copy, please." Or does he have to explicitly say, "DON'T FUCKING COPY THIS MOVIE YOU FUCKS!" and have them sign it for it to be a contract?
Signature __________________,
by MPAA FUCK
They then proceed to illegally copy it and hand it out to their employees. How stupid do you have to be?
In Europe, there was a police raid on a couple of "Release Groups" today, supported by the the GVU (Geman leg of the MPA). Funny thing is, one of the places searched was the GVU's office, becasue they were actively involved in swapping the movies. Two stories about it (in German) one and two
Lars T.
To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck
Apparently this day has some positive karma towards that kind of news. In Germany a similar thing happened, when the police raided about 20 FTP sites allegedly serving pirated movies. One of the sites taken down during that action was the office and servers of the GVU Gesellschaft zur Verfolgung von Urheberrechtsverletzungen, an office funded by the German content industry to investigate "pirating". Their website was down for half the day, too (GVU. More info to this, in German at heise. -- was ich selber denk und tu, das traue ich den andern zu
605413? Yes, it's a prime.
When you're a giant corproration with a ton of lawyers, lobbyists and a congressperson or two, laws are for other people!
Sheesh!
MjM
XKCD:Xeric Knowledge Comically Dispen
MPAA FUCKER,
by .
The article didn't say, but certainly the MPAA would have a stipulation in any service agreements between themselves and any film-makers. I bet in that agreement there is a clause that states copies may be created for internal review purposes.
this is, however, just speculation.
Can we then reserve the right to consider our next action "accelerated oxidation of their physical resources coincident with carbon reclamation," rather than "burning their fucking headquarters to the ground with everyone locked inside"?
"Made up/misattributed quote that makes me look smart. I am on
Their stand: "We made a copy of Kirby's movie because it had implications for our employees," said Kori Bernards, the MPAA's vice president for corporate communications. "We were concerned about the raters and their families," Bernards said. She said the MPAA's copy of "This Film Is Not Yet Rated" is "locked away," and is not being copied or distributed
Now implications/perspectives:
(*)"The courts recognize that parties are entitled to make a copy of a work for use as evidence in possible future proceedings,"
They have no prob with me keeping a personal copy, to defend myself if, in future, they sue me so that I could say that this copy proves I had watched the original print?
(*)Fair use policy means I could have a copy (provided it is not protected, hence no DMCA?), as I am not distributing for any gain whatsoever? And hence it isnt piracy? so ripping is okay?
(*)
Let's not forget that consumer DVD burners were never given the capability to encrypt, since they can't burn to the area of the disk where the CSS key is stored. So even if the MPAA made a copy, it's likely to have been a clear copy.
idm owns me
"It's difficult to see how This Film Is Not Yet Rated--which ended up with an NC-17 rating for graphic sexual content--is being harmed."
Call me sceptical, but if I were a ratings association and wanted a film exposing my practices burried, I would slap an NC-17 label on it and make sure it was tucked far away from public sight. But now that this article has surfaced, I want to see it, to see if it really does have graphic secual content, or if the MPAA was just trying to hush a movie.
-Rick
"Most people in the U.S. wouldn't know they live in a tyrannical state if it walked up and grabbed their junk." - MyFirs
Title: MPAA Makes Illegal Copies of DVD
Hey, I make illegal copies too! Maybe they'd like to get together so we can trade. I wonder if they have Land of the Dead yet...
Dedicated Cthulhu Cultist since 4523 BC.
Personally, I can't see any justification for an organization such as the MPAA ignoring a directive from a copyright owner, but IANAL."
Did you mean:
Personally, I can't see any justification for an organization such as the MPAA ignoring a directive from a copyright owner, but I am a bit ANAL."
Anyway, I think that the MPAA should sue the RIAA, and vice-versa. This will tie them up in court for years and let everyone get back to the Prime Directive of copying every Ashley Simpson album known to exist.
He who knows best knows how little he knows. - Thomas Jefferson
I've had a bit of experience in this area, as the RIAA violated my copyright a couple of years ago by reprinting an article I wrote on intellectual property. Had it not been cited by the Washington Post I wouldn't have even been aware of it! Still they ended up distributing that material in a press packet, and of course it was all without permission. They ended up apologizing, but there wasn't really anything that I could do about it at that point.
:)
I suspect it'll be the same with this guy. His case is better than mine, I'd think, as he's got legal resources to some degree I'd think. However, my bet is that in terms of an overall payoff, all this is going to produce for him is perhaps some free press.
I wish him the best, regardless! Way to expose these folks
After the talk, I went up with a single question- "Did you clear public performance rights for that? iTunes downloads are for personal use only."
He instantly answered that he had, but given that he was a RIAA laywer, who knows? I'd put money that he formally hadn't, but had just assumed either being from RIAA or fair use covered it. My faculty use stuff from iTunes commonly in their classes- technically they can't except under some strict conditions, but my counsel has been to go ahead provided they take reasonable steps to make sure it stays inside the class.
"Seven Deadly Sins? I thought it was a to-do list!"
It could be profitable :0
The true meaning of DMCA: http://ars.userfriendly.org/cartoons/?id=20060122
As I understand it, fair use copying is basically for backup purposes only. If any one of those copies left the office place, and strict domain of the "Job" giving them the right to access one of these copies...sounds pretty clear cut violation to me.
I can copy a DVD and let it sit on my shelf while i watch the original, i can watch the copy and let the original sit on the shelf, i can watch the original in one room while a friend watches the copy in another room, but as soon as original leaves my possession, i must destroy the copies, and as soon as i let my friend borrow just he copy, i get sued. So basically, the "copies" of the dvd must have been used strictly in the same manner that the original could have been used. I.E. employees cannot take them home.
You call it excessive, I call it ambitious.
but IANAL
Good for you, but I don't see how your sexual leanings have anything to do with copyright violations.
Religion for nerds. Stuff that really matters
1. Bypassing CSS (which it appears they did *not* do). If you intentionally bypass a "content protection mechanism", you're guilty of a crime. Doesn't matter who you are or why you did it.
2. Copying materials in direct violation of the content owner's expressed wishes. This would be copyright infringement, plain and simple. According to the FBI Warning that shows up on every DVD I rent, the FBI investigates all cases of infringement, including those where there is no monetary gain.
Silly, huh?
Let the blade fall again, again, and agian! IF MPAA wants to fall on their own blade, fine, but at least let us crucify the bastards that DARE break their own rules that they consider set in stone.
C'est la Vie sweetheart, now get into the guillotine!
First rule of holes; When in one, stop digging.
Oops.
Not that they are particularly distinguishable, anyway...
Mother, do you think they'll like this sig?
Sounds a whole lot like pot, kettle and black. The copyright owner should sue their pants off.
My karma is not a Chameleon.
I tried to go on the MPAA web site and report them to themselves for piracy... but their reporting tool seems to be crashing with a SQL error... anybody else try this and have any luck?
from the La Times article:
The MPAA's Bernards, who said Glickman was unavailable for comment, said the organization was operating lawfully when it copied Dick's movie without his or his producer's authorization. "The courts recognize that parties are entitled to make a copy of a work for use as evidence in possible future proceedings," she said.
So any law that restricts your ability to make a copy of a work or forbids the access to tools make those copies, violates your right to due process, since it prevents you from making such a copy for evidence purposes.
Where's those constitutional lawyers?
I love this situation that the MPAA just put themselves into. By making the copies after being told not to by the copyright holder, they have indeed violated the very laws which they wave in everyone else's faces during their rants about movie copying...
And their whole "well it's about us" thing is specious at best. I could claim that The Breakfast Club was about me, so I deserve a copy for myself, my family, and all my friends... Hell, why not my employees and co-workers too?
If they had some *LEGAL* issue where they want to use the movie in the lawsuit, they could ask a judge for the right to make duplicates of the information pursuant to a pending legal action, and if given the right, they could then do it. Of course they'd have to then return those copies to the rightful holder at the conclusion of the legal action(s)...
My best advice to the MPAA goons would be to simply send the guy a check for the price * number of copies they made, and say it was a mistake...
I know a lot of people might agree that copying the DVD for legal purposes, that being of evidence in a POSSIBLE lawsuit, is perfectly legal. I have to counter with the fact that if the MPAA really wanted to do something, they could have just as easily used the *original* DVD instead of having to make a copy of it, and should have done it by now - not after the story breaks. Also, since there is no lawsuit filed by the MPAA, the reason for using a copy as evidence should be ruled out, along with the fact that the copy could have been altered in some way. Of course now that this story has gone public, the MPAA may be the first to file a lawsuit, but it could end in disasterous consequences for both parties.
Heh, I work in the MPAA's DC building (not for them) across the hall from Valenti's office, I wonder if he could hook me up, I've been dying to see that movie.
....does that mean the MPAA will have to fuck themselves?
When Dick submitted his film for a rating, he asked in an e-mail for assurances that "no copies would be made of any part or all of the film," according to a copy of the e-mail exchange.
... is our first priority. Please feel assure (sic) that your film is in good hands."
In a reply e-mail, an MPAA representative did not specifically say the organization wouldn't copy the film, but did say "the confidentiality of your film
------
So, technically, they did not say that they wouldn't copy it.
However, it is STILL a violation of the DCMA, and one that the author should sue for.
According to Mark Lemley, a professor at the Stanford Law School, the MPAA may have been within its rights to make copies of the film. Given that the MPAA's intent isn't financial gain...
So, that's okay then? Please, please, please...say that's ok. Just once. We won't hold you to it in the future. Honest!
Weaselmancer
rediculous.
dvdshrink might get endorsement as an MPAA certified DVD copy program !!!
Have we all forgotten the Engadget interview in which our good friend Jack V said "Now, fair use is not in the law. People are taking fair use and changing it to unfair use and claiming that it's fair use."
Sorry, but they can't have it both ways. Either there's fair use and they can make copies for internal/non-revenue generating purposes (and so can everybody else), or they can pay a ridiculous amount of money to the owners of the copyright for breaking the law as they see and try to enforce it.
As an aside, do you think one of those questionably legal/illegal copies of the movie ended up making the rounds on BitTorrent? Just a thought...
Starting next week, all passwords will be entered in Morse code
The film was rated (presumably by the MPAA) as NC-17 for sexual content. Pants down. Get it??? Someone did ;-)
The MPAA will take themselves to court. Following their standard procedures, they will then delay proceedings, forcing the opposing party (themselves) to run out of funding for lawyers. Eventually, they will win by default because they can no longer afford the necessary fees. From their new HQ, under a bridge, they will issue a public statement in the form of cardboard and permanent marker.
Prove it.
"He wasn't stalking them, he was filming them. He is a legitimate film maker."
This has been ruled on then? The case has been decided?
"IANAL" but I'll inject my legal commentary anyway
"but I believe that it has been held up in the courts many times that you have no expectations of privacy in a public place."
What does that have to do with stalking?
How pathetic are you that you follow me from topic to topic and waste all your mod points at once modding me down?
Irony aside, I still can't understand how a movie that consisted entirely of following film raters around managed to get an NC-17 rating for explicit sexual content. Where exactly did he follow these people? Apparently they must have a lot more fun on their job than I do on mine!
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
Wait a minute...The "not for monetary gain" defense actually works?! Isn't that a standard part of the anti-piracy line, that it doesn't matter if you don't want to sell it, its still illegal?
useless sig advice - Read Nabokov.
So a typical DVD pirate (the real kind, not the regular folks who just want to make backup copies) rips and burns copies of a DVD and then sells the copies. The pirate is obviously motivated by financial gain from this activity.
The MPAA rips and burns a DVD to prove how easy it is in order to light a fire under Congress to get them to rip Fair Use out of copyright law and make illegal technologies that would enable exercise of Fair Use rights, all in the name of protecting the MPAA's "limited time" (read: infinitely extending) monopoly as afforded to them by copyright law and international treaties, with the ultimate goal being to charge every pair of eyeballs for every single access of MPAA-cartel content.
How, then is the MPAA's illegal duplication of a DVD not motivated by financial gain?
You see? You see? Your stupid minds! Stupid! Stupid!
Seekers of conclusions, turn ye back.
/gained/.
I don't know how "proving damages" works. do you need to prove the total amount lost, or the net amount lost? If the MPAA gave 30 copies of a movie which those people would otherwise have each had to pay $5 to see (and which, given the content, it would have been in their best interest to go see), that's $150 feasibly "lost".
But if the publicity of that loss causes 31 more people to see the movie, who otherwise would not have seen it, that's $5
But then, it wasnt their actions which caused the net-gain, it was someone else reporting on their actions. Hard to argue for that, since it's doubtful the MPAA would go to lengths to show off their crime.
-- 'The' Lord and Master Bitman On High, Master Of All
-1 to mod for not getting the joke.
What is the definition of "personal use" in cases like this?
Does listening with your friends count? Showing students?
Where are the boundaries, and is there a codified definiton? I'm genuinely curious.
How pathetic are you that you follow me from topic to topic and waste all your mod points at once modding me down?
From the LA Times article: "The courts recognize that parties are entitled to make a copy of a work for use as evidence in possible future proceedings."
Hey, I could think of a LOT of possible future proceedings.
The Big Fish....the little fry, just have no right to pursue it. So, does anyone expect this to turn out any other way than in the MPAA's favor?
He who has the $$$ gets the rest of the $$$$$$$$$$
SONY, should have been hit with a fine or penalty for every instance of the ROOT kit installed. Were they? Nope...but they'll turn around and sue a 12 yr old.
Anyone else curious why a documentary on film ratings recived a "NC-17 rating for graphic sexual content" rating?
~Petaris "The world is open. Are you?"
I can't help but be slightly amused at Slashdot's headline for this story. It seems the (MP|RI)AA have done their job so well, we're all too happy to go along with their interpretation that copying a DVD is illegal and there is no fair use.
Yes, I realize the irony of the situation (or the hypocrisy, really), and that's why we jump at the chance to yell "OMG, the MPAA broked theirr own law, they are teh guilty, LOL!!11".
Think about the unlikely event that they'd be brought to court over this. Something tells me they wouldn't hesitate to plead guilty - it might end up being the most cost-effective way for them to set a favourable precedent. So the best outcome for the rest of us would be for the MPAA to be declared innocent in this matter.
How's THAT for irony?
ClutterMe.com - easiest site creation on the Net. Just click and type.
Quick! Report them to http://mpaa.org/ReportPiracy.asp
That's it, I yield dominance over chicks to Brad Pitt. Yeah, you heard me right, Brad, you can let out that sigh of relief. Now that I've made this announcement you have nothing to worry about anymore.
You don't need to descramble the contents to make a bit-for-bit copy of a DVD. You do need to descramble if you want to watch a legally purchased DVD.
The GVU ( German Federation Against Copyright Theft ) is suspected of having regularly paid at least one administrator of one of the major warez servers in Germany. In exchange for their payment, the GVU got access to logfiles. Furthermore the GVU is accused of having provided hardware for the server, which was located in Frankfurt. The office of the GVU in Ellwangen was raided and there also is an investigation against the central in Hamburg.
Sorry for my ignorance, but what is IANAL? Please tell me it's not a new Apple product. Of course then it would be iAnal I guess...
This is the Internet. You can say "fuck" if you want to.
the film shows various sex scenes (gay and straight) taken from other films, in an effort to show that gay sex scenes will earn a harsher rating from the MPAA than an equivalent heterosexual act would.
Remember "News for Nerds, Stuff that Matters"? Help make it a reality again! http://soylentnews.org
My public library has loads of DVDs for loan for free (hey, it's a public library). Problem is there are huge waiting lists and you can only borrow for 2 days. When your turn comes up on the wait list, you have only 2 days to pickup. This is a problem when, say, 4 or 5 movies come up for me at the same time. Does fair use allow me to "timeshift" the viewing of those DVDs by dropping them into my media center harddrive for later viewing?
That makes sense. The MPAA asked me very nicely not to copy their films too. I didn't specifically agree, but I assured them that their film was in good hands. Anybody want a copy?
CSS doesn't prevent copying. It never has prevented copying. CSS is an attempt to prevent playback on non-licensed players, or players not matching the region code of the movie. A bit-by-bit copy of a CSS-encrypted DVD can be made without "breaking CSS", and that copy will play just as well as the many mass produced copies of the original do.
CSS was never about copying a DVD to another DVD. It is about control over not letting the DVD be easily transformed into any other form for playback in non-licensed (and royalty generating, btw) players.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
Thanks to the NET Act, it's considered "financial gain" to exchange unauthorized copies of copyrighted works for other unauthorized copies.
I believe Linus Torvalds made note of this after some piece of SCO FUD.
IANAL, this is not legal advice, etc. Just some layman trying to make sense of the incomprehensible legal system we have. You'd think that 10 commandments ought to be enough for anybody. And heck, those can be shortened to two...
Or better yet... every single eyeball so the real pirates (patches and peglegs) don't get away with two sea captains watching for the price of one.
I don't believe it's stalking to photograph people in public. If it is, then a lot of celebrity photographers are out of a job.
And apparently the police didn't think it was stalking either since no arrests have been reported to this point.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
"The courts recognize that parties are entitled to make a copy of a work for use as evidence in possible future proceedings,"
Hmmm. OK. I'm going to make a backup copy of all my DVDs, but not for the purpose of protecting them from kids, being dropped, or other potential abuses that cold ruin them. I'm going to copy them for the purpose of the copies being used as evidence in some possible future legal proceedings. Hey, if they find out I copied aa DVD and sue me for it, surely this copy will be used by them against me as evidence in court proceedings, no? Does it matter that it's evidence for or against me, so long as its evidence of some kind? A possible loophole?? Bwaahaahaa!
You're a sick, little puppy, you know.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
So ok they made illegal DVD rips, then what?
Gimme the juice, how many of their lawyers will defend then and how many of them will sue them. How much will MPAA sue itself for. Will MPAA demand that MPAA get some jail time.
Is there any proof that it was indeed MPAA who ripped the DVD's or was it RIAA kidding with MPAA's computer again? Will MPAA crack and settle outside court? How will this precedent affect future cases?
So many questions...
The only DRM that should be allowed is DRM that expires and becomes ineffective the moment the copyright expires. All other DRM methods should be banned as preventing fair use.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
The Hollywood trade organization probably feels that because copyright law exists solely to benefit them, that it means whatever they say it means.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
Remember, the MPAA and RIAA both require signatures in blood for a contract to be considered binding on the part of the MPAA. Verbal contracts are binding if you're doing something FOR the MPAA, but if you want the MPAA to do something (or not do something in this case) then it has to be signed in blood, in triplicate by four MPAA executives under a blood moon.
"Live Free or Die." Don't like it? Then keep out of the USA
I always wanted to use that Shakespearean phrase. Has the copyright has expired yet?
A classic straw man argument. These are two totally separate issues, but the MPAA is trying to make it sound like they are linked.
Kirby followed MPAA employees and went through their trash during the filming of his movie. This is a possible stalking charge, and perhaps invasion of privacy. I'm not a lawyer, so I don't know the exact charges that would be listed, but his actions are clearly on the edge of legality.
The MPAA made unauthorized copies of the movie. Who these copies were distributed to is totally irrelevant; the point is that the copies were made and distributed, even after the MPAA was asked in an email from Kirby *not* to make copies of the film. (Against the wishes of the copyright holder.)
Possibly, the MPAA ripped the film from a DVD. If this DVD is protected with CSS, then the MPAA is also guilty of a DMCA violation. (The article does not say why.) Who did the ripping, and why, is irrelevant in the eyes of the DMCA.
If this goes to trial, these issues will be dealt with separately. Kirby's actions do not automatically exempt the MPAA from copyright infringement and copyright protection circumvention charges, nor does the fact that the MPAA ignored his wishes as copyright holder exempt him from having to answer for his actions during filming.
For security, the MD5 hash of this message and sig is 09f911029d74e35bd84156c5635688c0.
WOW!! The Director must think Christmas has come early! :D Classic!
:D.
He makes a film about the MPAA (Basically slagging off their ratings system), and just as the Sundance film fest arrives, the MPAA show themselves to be MASSIVE hypocrites for copying his DVD
Fucking hilarious if you ask me. Long ago I'd stopped laughing about the MPAA/RIAA situation, turning instead to just plain disbelief. Now I'm back to laughing
You feel sleepy. Close your eyes. The opinions stated above are yours. You cannot imagine why you ever felt otherwise.
The MPAA, in response to questions regarding the rating, defended the rating, saying "The rating was appropriately assigned and is just, as it clearly exposes some of the biggest dicks in the industry."
A community-oriented lyrics site
I kind of go back and forth on this issue. Yeah, the MPAA sued a grandfather for $600k (I don't remember the exact specifics) and it would be fitting for them to get suits filed against them. On the other hand, wouldn't having legal action harm the cause in general?
CSS was never about copying a DVD to another DVD. It is about control over not letting the DVD be easily transformed into any other form for playback in non-licensed (and royalty generating, btw) players
iirc normal easilly availible burners can't write css disks. i don't know if the burners used for authoring css disks can make bit for bit copies or not but even if they can they are specilist and presumablly expensive equipment that your casul copier will not have access to.
note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
So Sony BMG who sues everyone for copyright infringement was found violating it themselves with not providing GPL documentation, and now MPAA is violating there rules? It seems that the bodies that prosecute violate the rules they are trying to "protect" in bigger ways than anyone, but we only notice it when something else brings it to light.
This is the funniest comment I've seen in weeks!
"Hey, the third matrix movie would have been good except for the plot,story, and acting." --AC
this isn't a fair use of the content. The owner definitely *does* get to say whether you can copy for non-fair-use reasons.
Isnt this Dirty Hands?
They are saying that they didn't do it for financial gain? But didn't they also say that it may be evidence in a potential lawsuit? If they plan to seek a monetary award in the lawsuit, than technically, they copied the DVD for financial gain. Second, if they claim that it's okay that they copied the movie in case of a potential future lawsuit, then that's all I need to claim if I copy a movie, right? I may have a reason to sue the producer at some point in the future, and I need to hold on to a copy of this movie just in case.
actually, it seemed to work out pretty good for Kyles dad in that one episode of south park.
I think it's clear that you ANAL.
. . . they're out there breaking their own damn laws?
Three words come to mind:
Pot. Kettle. Black.
Oh, and one more: Hypocrisy. ---End of Line---
Patrolling ftw
No more perfect way to quash piracy but to report it to the MPAA. http://www.mpaa.org/ReportPiracy.asp
This movie just made my must see list
;)
Yeah, same here. It isn't publically available right now, though. However, I hear that these guys may be able to hook you up with a copy
A community-oriented lyrics site
...we know that this one will go away quietly and we'll never get to the true heart of it.
Correct me if im wrong, but isn't this another example of how the government and laws (should) reflect what the majority thinks? If a huge amount of people say f*** copyright, lets pirate all we want, wouldn't it start becoming legal?
...The MPAA would say "Oh dear..." and vanish in a puff of logic.
Unfortunately, I do not believe this to be the case in our frame of reference.
--Storm
It should be legal for me to install and use the libdvd-css software on my PC, so long as my intent is not financial gain. I just want to play the DVDs I've purchased legally, I don't even have foreign region coded DVDs (which is streatching the law in my country anyway).
So come on, U.S. based Linux distro's, put libdvd-css back into your distro!
“Our opponent is an alien starship packed with nuclear bombs. We have a protractor.” — Neal Stepnenso
But the MPAA's opinion is that there is no such thing as "Fair Use".
Maybe, but what matters from a legal perspective is what laws are actually in effect, not what kind of laws someone thinks should be.
At worst, someone violating laws they think should exist makes them hypocrites, not criminals.
So where is the torrent ?
So, if I would d/l something I never had intention to spend cash on otherwise, there is no financial loss either, isn't it?
Hypothetically of course, with the crap coming out of hollywood not even downloading is worth the bother nowadays.
so if their goal not being financial gain makes it legal...i can no legally disregard the copy protection on all of my dvd's and make personal backup copies legally, as long as financial gain is not my goal. it seems to me that if they let the MPAA off the hook for this, then it completely nullifies the DMCA. it can be used as precedence for any and all future charges filed as violations of the DMCA for anyone not selling the copies.
While it is doubtful that this was planned from the start this is a very REAL possibility that shouldn't be disregarded.
a) By starting a note that's admittedly pedantic, I open myself to close scrutiny which may reveal the various mistakes I have inserted into this message as a test.
;)
b) Contracts generally *are* "verbal" -- and I say "generally" only because I can't think of any exceptions offhand. *Oral* contracts are different, though they're sometimes valid, too. Ask me again after I finish law school
timothy
jrnl: http://tinyurl.com/c2l8yr / foes: http://tinyurl.com/ckjno5
...is to yield all the way.
Pay compensation for losses in any desired amount.
Submit themselves to FBI for violating DMCA and paying whatever fines it would cost them.
Take the direst consequences against employees involved (at least officially. What they really do with them behind the scenes is a different matter.)
The more damage they take, the better for them, as long as they don't fight back, just swallow it. Take all the blame and "redeem" it. They CAN afford it.
And then use their own court case as example/precedent in any lawsuit they start. Small losses? Insignificantly small violation? So what? We paid. You must pay too.
45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
Who is more likely to previl in a court of "law?" MPAA with millions to buy the best "legal" representative, or the film producer? MPAA can simply drag the case out and bankrupt the plantiff.
The reason the laws are strict has very little to do with illegal copying. The real reason for all this DRM and laws preventing copying, etc is to force everyone to pay multiple times for the same content.
The MPAA/RIAA intend to lock us into paying for a seperate copy of every movie or song for every different player you own. Combine this with the software idea of paying for every use (software as a service) and it looks like we will be paying alot more for using our electronics.
Sony: Case of Right vs Left Hand
I'm sure someone's said this already and what-naught but. HAH! I knew it! And making personal copies for distribution still results in lose of potiential profits! After all, if why would someone want to buy their work if they can just steal it, right? Ha! Someone send these guys that RIAA lawsuit letter!!!
You know, the fact is, if you've actually worked in the industry before, what they claim as pirating is done all the time at work because... there's no other way to work without so of this much dreaded "pirating".
please... let me sleep... a little more... yay, no longer annonmyous coward.
(Original article is at http://www.heise.de/newsticker/meldung/68760)
GVU is reported to have sponsored piracy
Of all things, the Organization for Prosecuting Copyright Infringements (GVU) was targeted in the large search action against the piracy scene. The state attorney's office of Ellwangen suspects the private tracking organization of the film and software industry of having actively supported the distribution of what are called "warez". On Tuesday, investigators of the state Office of Criminal Investigation searched the Hamburg offices and the apartment of a high-ranking employee.
According to the joint research of the computer magaine c't and the news portal onlinekosten.de, evidence indicates that the GVU went beyond the pale in their investigations against pirates. For a fairly long time, the editorial staffs had received leads from an informant close to the GVU that had been supported by a second source. According to this informant, the GVU is reported to have regularly paid at least one administrator of a central exchange server of the warez scene. It attained log files and with them access IP addresses of this "box" in this way. It is reported to additionally have contributed hardware to equip the platform.
The server stood in a Frankfurt data center and was called IOH in the scene. It was confiscated today by the police. In a press release regarding the raid, today the GVU themselves emphasized that precisely this server in addition to one other had served "for mass distibution of pirated copies on the Internet".
For months, multiple release groups copied pirated film copies from their own servers onto IOH via the File Exchange Protocol (FXP) in order to make them accessible for the purpose of faster distribution. From what are called flash servers such as IOH, the files also reach operators of pay servers, for example, where they can be downloaded for payment by consumers. Moreover, the servers act as a source for supplying file sharing services.
Alongside many pirates, the GVU is reported to have also had access to IOH. Consequently, the private investigators could have had a large interest in ensuring that the "honeypot" remained attractive via a good Internet connection and powerful hardware. If it should be the case that the GVU helped finance the instrastructure of the pirates, this would establish a suspicion of criminally relevant aid to the distribution of warez material.
The state attorney's office of Ellwangen is clearly entertaining precisely this suspicion. To all appearances, through the seizure today of files of the GVU it would like to glean whether the GVU actually used such questionable investigation methods. The state's attorneys will also have to resolve whether the GVU management and the members, primarily large corporations from the film and software industry, had knowledge of the supposed operations. The investigation results from c't and onlinekosten.de indicate that at least one member of the GVU management (which also once designated its organization as a "small BKA [Federal Criminal Police Office] for copyright infringements") was informed about the operations.
In a comment, today at midday the GVU merely acknowledged that "the GVU center in Hamburg was also investigated". It was assumed that "it was presumably for the purpose of verifying the information that the GVU had surrendered to the authorities". That surely does not explain why the state attorney's office of Ellwangen required a judicial search warrant for an organization that, according to its own representation, cooperates particularly closely and well with the investigative authorities. The GVU did not comply with a request for a response to the investigation results by c't.
I tried to report piracy to the MPAA...
/ReportPiracy.asp, line 7
Microsoft OLE DB Provider for ODBC Drivers error '80040e10'
[Microsoft][ODBC SQL Server Driver]COUNT field incorrect or syntax error
Looks like Slashdot already beat me..
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
Given that the MPAA's intent isn't financial gain and that the whole situation may rise above the level of trading barbs through the media into legal action, making a copy may be justified.
it will be interesting to see if that holds up
since the majority of people who download movies do so without intent to gain financially.
MPAA had no reason to copy a movie to review it.
Most reviewers dont get a personal copy of a movie to watch they have to go to the cinema along with everyone else.
Great publicity has sprung from lawsuits against reviewers that released DVDscr and SCReeners by Awards reviewers
MPAA at the end of the day are reviewers plain and simple they watch the film and give it a grading
Do you Really Need to Copy It To Watch it?
So the MPAA members are going to jail? What's that warning at the beginning of every VHS video tape with a legitimate movie on it? And how much do they have to cough up monetarily? And where will the money go? To the crews, like the light crews, makeup crews, etc? I think not....
So, 30 CD/DVD backups is considered fair use? Boy, I don't know about you, but I think I may need 1-2 backups at most. 5 seems a little high, and 30 is right out. Why not 1000?
"Why officer, those 1000 CD/DVD are my backups, I'm not selling them..."
Who wants to bet that we'll catch RIAA, OPEC, USPTO, and Walmart's hands in the cookie jar as well?
The Rapture is NOT an exit strategy.
Entrapment is when the undercover cop comes up to a hooker and asks for sex. If the hooker offers sex without asking, it's not entrapment. If the cop says he's not looking for sex and the hooker has sex anyway, that's *definitely* not entrapment.
In this case, the guy said "do NOT make copies of my movie", and they made them anyway. Obviously this is not entrapment.
The only reason I can imagine that the MPAA could claim to be allowed to make copies is if it is required for the rating process (which it almost certainly isn't) or if it was for evidence to give to the police (the copies were given to employees).
dom
MPAA.
J ewish-Company-Is-called.
And Universal Studios. And Lucasarts. And whatever-in-the-name-of-fhuck-Steven-Speilburg's-
Don't just sue the MPAA. Sue all the god dam companies it represents. Fhuck them all.
"Given that the MPAA's intent isn't financial gain..." Well, you know, I find it strange that then that even doing a copy for backup purposes is considered bad. How about dvd rips I might do to post via usenet or whatever (hypothectically speaking of course). That wouldn't be for for financial gain, yet it's illegal. That quote would basically condone all file shared movies as long as you make no money from their distribution.
The way it reads to me the filmmaker was itching to stir something up to begin with, I mean why else would you specify that the MPAA not make any copies of the film...
"The way it reads to me the MPAA was itching to stir something up to begin with, I mean why else would you specify that the consumer not make any copies of the film..."
Any program relying on (nontrivial) preemptive multithreading will be buggy.
What he should have done was to include an autorun rootkit with an eula. To protect his "Intellectual Property" of course. Rooting the MPAA's boxes could be fun. Imagine all the underhanded deals contained in some of their doc files. Of course, it would be perfectly legal, and if anyone said anything, he could settle out of court for vouchers for free copies of his documentary ;-)
That said, I hope and pray that the author was smart enough to encode it with CSS, so we can actually have an example of using Fair Use policy to circumvent CSS encryption.
The MPAA has made for some bizarre cases. First, there was the instance where they legally threatened Prof. Felton for releasing an academic paper on CSS. The EFF *really* wanted to fight a case where the MPAA was trying to squash academic discussion, so they jumped on this. The MPAA dropped the case like a hot potato and for a while, the EFF was trying to argue to keep the judge from letting the MPAA drop the case. Now, we have the case where the EFF would be defending the MPAA to support fair use rights...
Any program relying on (nontrivial) preemptive multithreading will be buggy.
so its illegal to play DVDs on linux based machines?? please elaborate, this i did not know.
If you read the article, you'll probably get the impression that the possible MPAA defence isn't about financial gain (as this would be moral suicide), but rather based on the idea that the director of the movie has invaded the privacy (an illegal act) of the rating board members in the production of the movie.
I don't understand the legal system of the US enough to know for sure, but it may be possible that the MPAA will explain copying the movie as "gathering evidence" against the director. It really depends on what the US legal system will admit as evidence (fair use doctrine requires the individuals to make their own copy, presumably the MPAA did it for them) and whether copying the film was required for this purpose.
It seems to me that one copy (the original) of the film would suffice for such legal purposes, but IANAL. Perhaps somebody more "intimate" with the US legal process can comment on this?
Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
Actually, the MPAA has now changed their name to "The Movie Pirates' Associateion of America".
Those who sacrifice security to condemn liberty deserve to repeat history or something. - Benjamin Santayana
Imagine that. The RIAA suing the MPAA for unauthorised copying of the soundtrack of the movie. Let's all go to town!
Aww, c'mon. Somebody had to say it!
You moved your mouse. Please restart Windows for changes to take effect.