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.
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"
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...
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.
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...
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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
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
Sounds a whole lot like pot, kettle and black. The copyright owner should sue their pants off.
My karma is not a Chameleon.
He wasn't stalking them, he was filming them. He is a legitimate film maker.
IANAL 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.
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.
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.
I agree that there may not be a DMCA case (if there was no CSS), but I don't agree that they were within their rights. The author and copyright holder EXPLICITLY requested the MPAA not to make copies, and they did it anyway. He's got that in writing...
They had no right to distribute it, IMO.
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.
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?"
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.
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
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
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."
"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!
Oh, the whole thing is most certainly a violation of copyright. I'm not arguing against that. I was just pointing out that the DMCA doesn't necessarily apply unless they were decrypting encrypted content in order to make the copies.
This guy's the limit!
IANAL is short for I Am Not A Lawyer.
Error: No error occurred
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.
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.
Actually not. The DMCA and copyright term extension act (CTEA) was passed in 1998, before the amount of filesharing we have today. I was tempted to say "widespread", but when you consider the demographics and the population of the US at 300 million I would make a safe bet that the number of filesharers is miniscule and that truly "most people" do not illegally download. Except if you are on a college campus.
Also, unbiased scientific studies at Harvard have been done that show that there is no economic harm caused by downloading. I suspect that the *AAs go after people to prevent it from becoming a normal, accepted practice by the populace even though there are strict as can be (short of the death penalty, maybe the *AAs can buy that law next) to prevent it. Thus having a digital "prohibition". This is the only reason I can think of, other than trying to justify their existence.
Downloading actually made "Battlestar Galactica" a TV hit and made it "appointment TV" after many dissed it before it ran because of having a female Starbuck.
I doubt that a grainy "Star Wars" prequel making it to the web stopped anybody (even those that downloaded it) from going to the movie or buying the DVD later. Nor will it stop people from taping it when it makes it to cable. Also, if you notice the content on the torrent sites is a very narrow genre of current movies (i.e. scifi). There are no old movies (older than a year) nore any lesser known movies. By any stretch of the imagination, it is no Netflix.
Also, the copyright term extension act (CTEA) does absolutely nothing to prevent the downloading of content (except a little bit of crap made in 1924) and was nothing but a congressional handout to a large corporation (Disney) by a senator that loves the entertainment biz (my very own Orrin Hatch - he has his own song and CDs out that the entertainment biz makes sure he receives $28,000 a year royalties for). In my opinion, this is the most egregious of the two (and I won't go into why here), though others may justifiably disagree,
So your original statement above is simplistic and inaccurate. "Abuse of the system" actually was started by congress when they lengthened copyright 11 times in recent history, and never provided any "balance" for the end user. Further abuses will shortly take place with hardwired DRM. "Abuse of the system" is when a copyright infringer is subject to worst penalty than rapists are. "Abuse of the system" is having a congress that whores themselves out at a drop of the hat (I hope Abrahamoff sings like a canary). I could go on.
So in short, there really was nothing to "ruin for the rest of us". But rather it's an industry that is incapable of managing their product despite the strongest copyright laws ever.
Take the cheese to sickbay, the doctor should see it as soon as possible - B'Elanna Torres, "Learning Curve"
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
No more perfect way to quash piracy but to report it to the MPAA. http://www.mpaa.org/ReportPiracy.asp
...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
(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.