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.

11 of 424 comments (clear)

  1. Financial gain? by los+furtive · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  2. Re:Does that mean that..... by iSeal · · Score: 5, Insightful

    .... The MPAA will have to sue themselves?

    Nah, they'll just sue the company they got to make copies for them. They'll call it a "mega piracy bust" or something, and say that they found 30 DVD replicators inside and some pirated goods... namely this one "This Film is Not Yet Rated" documentary.

  3. Re:CSS? by OneSeventeen · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I unfortunately agree. The MPAA does have a case, considering the police were already called about potential stalking, and with this serving as evidence in that potential lawsuit, I can't help but agree this should be possible, to protect the innocent in this situation .

    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.

    I'm tired of being told it is illegal to play DVDs on my linux-based laptop even though I own the DVD and have no DVD ripping libraries on my computer. Hopefully this publicity will force the MPAA to admit that there are cases that backup copies should be legal.

    And to all the DVD ripping/sharing individuals, thanks for making it hard on the rest of us. Abuse of the system is what caused such strict policies and laws in the first place.

    --
    "Now the trouble about trying to make yourself stupider than you really are is that you very often succeed." -C.S. Lewis
  4. Re:Uh Oh... by dancpsu · · Score: 4, Insightful

    For this case yes, but it will be an interesting day in court when a defendants lawyer brings this up when the MPAA sues someone else for copyright infringement.

    --
    "Scientists don't change their minds, they just die." -- Max Planck
  5. Re:Not popular, but here's the truth by EvilMagnus · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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?

    What? No.

    Show me the bit in the Copyright Act that says "If a copyrighted work mentions you, you get a free copy."

    --
    -EvilMagnus
  6. Re:More info in the original unspun article by PatHMV · · Score: 4, Insightful

    But fair use is not grounds for circumventing DRM under the DMCA.

  7. Re:Uh Oh... by AndersOSU · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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 - have any films actually been leaked by the ratings board?

    I obviously don't know the background but when a guy makes an incidiary movie about the MPAA, makes specific requests of the MPAA, and pays attention to whether or not his instructions were followed it seems to be like he is trying to get a law suit.

    I am torn between not liking the film maker for trying to find something to sue for and not liking the MPAA because they're cockroaches - I think I'll just settle on liking neither and hoping that the MPAA loses.

  8. Re:CSS? by Armchair+Dissident · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I unfortunately agree. The MPAA does have a case, considering the police were already called about potential stalking, and with this serving as evidence in that potential lawsuit, I can't help but agree this should be possible, to protect the innocent in this situation .

    Even if the police were called regarding stalking and even if there was evidence on the DVD that could be used as evidence, the correct thing (IANAL etc) would be for the police to seize the original DVD, NOT for the MPAA to arbitrarialy decide what could and could not be used as evidence in a potential criminal case.

    Which raises another interesting question. Given that these were copies made without the agreement of the copyright holder, and without - presumably - proper forensic procedures having taken place; would they be admissible anyway? My guess would be "no" because you can't prove you've not tampered with them.

    --

    The ways of gods are mysteriously indistinguishable from chance.
  9. Re:More info in the original unspun article by SpecBear · · Score: 5, Insightful

    That's funny, since Jack Valenti (President of the MPAA until 2004) has claimed repeatedly that there's no such thing as fair use.

    They were making copies of the work in its entirety and distributing it to employees because they thought they might be interested in it because the movie was about them. The only reason they had access to the material in the first place was because it was submitted to be rated, and they control the ratings process. IANAL, but I don't see how they'd squeeze a fair use defense out of this.

    Remember, this is a movie that was being submitted for rating, so it hadn't been released yet. The MPAA has supported legislation that would have made this kind of copying a felony punishable by jail time.

    I would love for this to go to trial and have the MPAA use a fair use defense. I want them on the record as saying distributing a small number of copies for purposes other than financial gain. I want an MPAA executive under oath stating what that number is. Hell, I just want them to submit to the court, in writing, a document that acknowledges the existence of the fair use exceptions.

  10. Intellectual Property Rights...are only for by PortHaven · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  11. Re:Not popular, but here's the truth by EvilMagnus · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The movie (which contains parts of him following them around) can be used as evidence. It's legal to make copies under those conditions.

    Last time I checked, the MPAA were not a Law Enforcement agency.

    They made copies of the movie and gave them to their employees. That's very different from handing over the evidence (the original DVD) to the Police, and then the Police making copies.

    --
    -EvilMagnus