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.

Comments

Does that mean that.....

[8127972]

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

Re:Does that mean that.....

[iSeal]

.... 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.

Uh Oh...

[dancpsu]

The "no profit" loophole was closed by the DMCA. Now the MPAA is fleeing to a locked door. This is going to be fun.

Re:Uh Oh...

[faloi]

The "no profit" loophole was closed by the DMCA. Now the MPAA is fleeing to a locked door. This is going to be fun.

It'll only get fun if the film maker decides to try to take it somewhere. Right now it looks like the film wasn't harmed financially, and I don't think the film maker has a major studio backing him with financial and legal muscle. He'll probably milk it for publicity, and it'll all go away. Or at most be something we point to for the next five years or until the MPAA does something else stupid, whichever comes first.

Re:Uh Oh...

[dancpsu]

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.

Re:Uh Oh...

[murphyslawyer]

The DMCA says nothing about fair use (except for the reverse engineering clause if I recall).

The DMCA makes it illegal to break copyright protection mechanisms. If the movie was NOT protected, and it probably wasn't, then the DMCA does not come into play in any way.

The copyright infringment bit is still possible, but fair use does come into play there.

That's really the perversion of the DMCA - any copyright protection mechanism, pretty much regardless of how poorly implemented, trumps fair use rights.

Re:Uh Oh...

[ewhac]

The "no profit" loophole was closed by the DMCA.

Actually, that loophole was closed by the No Electronic Theft ("NET") Act, not the DMCA.

Funnily enough, like the DMCA, the NET Act was also signed into law by the Clinton Administration. I only point that out to illustrate that selling out your rights to further rapacious corporate profits is not, and never has been, exclusively a Republican trait.

Schwab

Re:Uh Oh...

[HaeMaker]

Not harmed financially? If he was harmed as much as $1, he can sue and get into punitive damage territory. If copies were given to MPAA staffers, those staffers will not need to see the movie in the theater or buy it on DVD, since they already have a copy, that is all it takes. IANAL.

Re:Uh Oh...

[FellowConspirator]

For what it's worth, if the film had been encrypted using CSS (like a normal CD), then the DMCA applies. If the DMCA applies, the act was criminal (copyright infringement is a tort, while a DMCA violation is a crime).

In this sense, the copyright owner need not complain at all. Anyone may report the crime to law enforcement (it being a federal law, that would probably be the FBI), and it is their duty to investigate and then prosecute if the evidence supports it.

Nothing in copyright law nor the DMCA implies that profit need be a motive or that the copyright holder was financially harmed by the act. Look it up.

Re:Uh Oh...

[AndersOSU]

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.

Re:Uh Oh...

[cpt kangarooski]

For what it's worth, if the film had been encrypted using CSS (like a normal CD), then the DMCA applies. If the DMCA applies, the act was criminal (copyright infringement is a tort, while a DMCA violation is a crime).

Your post is incorrect.

First, it's DVDs that are encrypted with CSS, not CDs, which normally are not encrypted at all. Second, while yes, the anti-circumvention statute would apply, it's unclear whether the MPAA would have violated it; it depends on whether or not they defeated CSS, or just copied the DVD with CSS intact. Third, not all violations of the DMCA are crimes -- the law does more than just set up anti-circumvention provisions. Fourth, copyright infringement can be criminal, under the right circumstances, and circumvention is civilly actionable, just as copyright is.

In this sense, the copyright owner need not complain at all. Anyone may report the crime to law enforcement (it being a federal law, that would probably be the FBI), and it is their duty to investigate and then prosecute if the evidence supports it.

Fifth, the FBI and Department of Justice have discretion in choosing what crimes to investigate and who to prosecute, as they have limited resources. Reporting this to them could easily result in no criminal case ever even beginning. While it might not hurt to report with them, a victim with a cause of action should pursue his own case, regardless of law enforcement.

Nothing in copyright law nor the DMCA implies that profit need be a motive or that the copyright holder was financially harmed by the act.

True, but these can have an impact. For example, the MPAA may have here a good claim to fair use, since their interest in the film is in looking into the privacy of their employees, rather than making copies as a substitute for getting them from the Best Buy. If they're looking in to their legal remedies against the filmmaker, if they have any, this too strengthens their defense.

Re:Uh Oh...

[tambo]

it depends on whether or not they defeated CSS, or just copied the DVD with CSS intact.

I'm not sure about that.

Some copyright-enforcement mechanisms for CD-ROMs, like SecuROM and SafeDisc, look for particular quirks in the format of data storage on the CD that indicates that it's authentic. Of course, utilities like DAEMON Tools now provide access to ISOs in a manner that emulates the quirks in the original media, for the purpose of fooling the copyright enforcement mechanism into thinking that the ISO is the authentic media. Now, good luck presenting an argument in court that this isn't "circumvention" of the copyright mechanism.

Similarly, the purpose of CSS is to prevent the content from being playable on any copied DVD. Are you sure that "circumvention" is limited to extracting the content without the CSS wrapper - and excludes making a copy of the DVD that looks authentic to the CSS protection?

Fifth, the FBI and Department of Justice have discretion in choosing what crimes to investigate and who to prosecute, as they have limited resources.

That's true. But much more importantly, criminal prosecution has always been an extremely political decision. I really can't see the State of California filing suit against one of its major businesses for a fairly minor and technical criminal violation; the political cost would be too high.

the MPAA may have here a good claim to fair use...

Not sure about this.

The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has construed the crime of DMCA circumvention as inherently requiring some kind of underlying copyright violation - i.e., if there's no actual copyright violation, then there's no DMCA liability. Unfortunately, that statutory construction is suspect for a number of reasons. (The CAFC's reasoning is large based on the positioning of the DMCA within 17 USC, the copyright laws... which seems, at best, alarmingly squishy logic.) This is problematic because the DMCA liability clause is very clear, and very clearly doesn't mention "underlying copyright violation" or anything remotely similar. The Supreme Court of the United States has not yet weighed in, so the future of the DMCA might be interesting.

In other words: The DMCA may or may not require proof of some kind of copyright violation in connection with the act of circumvention. If it does, then fair use is a valid defense to the underlying copyright violation, and can be used to fend off DMCA liability. If it does not, then fair use is no defense whatsoever to DMCA liability.

- David Stein

Re:Uh Oh...

[tambo]

Unless they make an argument that what they did was illegal, in which case some sort of estoppel might apply if they're prosecuting someone.

:shrug: Estoppel wouldn't even apply in that scenario. If you tresspass on someone's property, do you irrevocably lose the right to sue anyone for trespass to your property?

(The kind of estoppel you're suggesting is like trying to sue someone for theft of your illegal narcotics stash. It's an "unclean hands" scenario: if you're engaged in criminal behavior, you can't sue someone else over their conduct in the same action.)

- David Stein

Re:Uh Oh...

[hackronym0]

That's true. But much more importantly, criminal prosecution has always been an extremely political decision. I really can't see the State of California filing suit against one of its major businesses for a fairly minor and technical criminal violation; the political cost would be too high. --Emphasis mine

I just want to point out that until it is judged by a court with the proper authority and jurisdiction, I am not so sure how someone is supposed to determine which crimes are minor and should be allowed to slip through the cracks.

You're honor, I only stole 1000 bucks from Bill Gates. He's a gabillionaire. It's all pretty minor, if you think about it. I mean, technically, I only stole 0.00001% of what he has. Can't we just round that off and call it 0?

Some days the slippery slope just keeps getting slipperier...

Re:Uh Oh...

[Geoffreyerffoeg]

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.

That's entrapment, of course.

Entrapment is only illegal when it's done by the police.

Financial gain?

[los furtive]

Those movies you can download or share on torrent sites? They aren't copied for financial gain either.

Re:Financial gain?

[stinerman]

More precisely, they are often copied not for financial gain but to curb financial loss.

Re:Financial gain?

[Chops]

Those movies you can download or share on torrent sites? They aren't copied for financial gain either.

Didn't you get the memo? The movies on file sharing sites all have stegonographically encrypted bomb making instructions in them to give to the terrorists in Al Qaeda in exchange for the money which is used to buy the drugs which are given to the school children for posing in the child pornography which is stored on the computers of the innocent after they're broken into with the hacking tools that come with Linux. It should have all been explained in the Evil People's Ten Steps to Victory flier that came with your Debian installation. Didn't you get one?

Re:Financial gain?

[xaque]

He must be a Red Hat user.

Perhaps the title should've been rephrased...

[Spy der Mann]

"Not even MPAA employees give a **** about DMCA".

There :)

intent!!

[wardk]

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.

Re:intent!!

[joeface]

exactly

If the point to all of the *AAs' huffing and puffing is the financial gain of the people doing any sort of copying, and the MPAA can get away with making copies of this guy's movie, then we should all be able to breathe a sigh of relief, right?

(Well, in an ideal world, yes, but in our current bizarro-world where big corporations want to control every thought in your head and dollar in your pocket, no).

It also amuses me that they claim the copying was justified because their employees' privacy may have been voilated. Two wrongs don't make a right. Just because they believe laws were broken, doesn't mean they can break them as well.

Then again, these days, they make the laws, so yeah, I guess they can break them...

HAHAHA

[ZeonMan0079]

" MPAA Makes Illegal Copies of DVD "

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...

More info in the original unspun article

[MaceyHW]

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.

Re:More info in the original unspun article

[walt-sjc]

... But the MPAA's opinion is that there is no such thing as "Fair Use". They don't even allow you to make a backup copy of your DVD's (which, especially if you have children, is important.)

There used to be a company called "321 Studios" that sold backup software. Guess what happened to them?

Re:More info in the original unspun article

[PatHMV]

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

Re:More info in the original unspun article

[SpecBear]

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.

Perfect

[XMilkProject]

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.

Statutory Damages

[EvilMagnus]

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.

Re:Statutory Damages

[cpt kangarooski]

Wrong.

We've had statutory damages since the 1790 Copyright Act, and IIRC, it was in the Statute of Anne, which was even earlier. Over the years, the amount has increased (and MPAA has lobbied in favor of that), but the idea's always been there.

Presently statutory damages are within a range of $750 - 30,000. If the infringement was intentional, the ceiling can rise to $150,000. In rare cases, the floor can drop to $200. A few defendants -- never you -- in exceptional cases can get the floor dropped to $0. In some circumstances, statutory damages may not be available to the plaintiff; he'll have to sue for actual damages. Of course, injunctive relief, fees, costs, etc. are also available, and you needn't just pick one.

However, these are the numbers for works infringed, not the number of infringements. That is, if you make a million copies of Star Wars, the most you can possibly be liable for is $150,000. But if you make one copy of Star Wars and one copy of Empire, then you could be liable for $300,000, since there are two works infringed upon now, not just the one.

The relevant statute is 17 USC 504.

Director request No Copies.

[IAAP]

Dick had specifically requested in an e-mail that the MPAA not make copies of the movie.

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

Bah, that's nothing.

[Lars T.]

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

Re:Bah, that's nothing.

[Chuckaluphagus]

In my mind, this raid on the Hamburg offices of the GVU is even more jaw-dropping than the MPAA copying one single movie and distributing it to employees. Here's my summary, I don't have time to hack out a full translation right now:

<summary>

The GVU (The German analog to the MPAA) had its Hamburg offices raided today after a criminal investigation into the German warez scene turned up at least one server and warez group being actively funded by the the GVU. The GVU paid the admin of the server (called "IOH", located in Frankfurt) for access to server logs, sort of as a "honeypot" setup. They were collecting information about warez distribution, but they additionally paid for hardware upgrades to the server as well. The investigation is trying to determine whether they also paid for the bandwidth and additional infrstructure for the server operation.

</summary>

I'm sorry, this takes astonishing gall. The article denotes this as a major, high-capacity warez server, which would mean it hosted and handled a huge amount of copyrighted material. It looks to me like a case where the GVU decided "we're the good guys, so we don't have to follow the laws." I can only hope some nice, schadenfreude-laden prosecution comes out of this.

In Germany police raided the GVU, take server

[daniel23]

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

Re:CSS?

[OneSeventeen]

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.

Difficult to see?

[RingDev]

"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

What's this?

[east coast]

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...

Re:Not popular, but here's the truth

[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?

What? No.

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

Nothing new here, but milk that publicity!

[Bill_Royle]

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 :)

This sort of thing is common

[edremy]

Back a couple of EDUCAUSEs ago, I went to a talk by a RIAA laywer about legal downloading vs. illegal. He was happily showing off iTunes and downloading some Rolling Stones tunes to play for the 200+ people in attendance. (The talk actually wasn't all that bad- he was trying to get the idea across that legal ways to get and share digital music now existed.)

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.

Statutory damages!!!! =Profit!

[Tsu Dho Nimh]

If the copyright was registetred, he can sak for statutory damages ($50K or so) and not have to prove financial losses from the copying.

It could be profitable :0

Okay...

[Eightyford]

but IANAL

Good for you, but I don't see how your sexual leanings have anything to do with copyright violations.

Re:Okay...

[Anonymous Coward]

Its a joke, retard.

Wait wait wait!!!

[Weaselmancer]

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!

Re:CSS?

[Armchair Dissident]

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.

Legal Proceedings

[darthservo]

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.

Intellectual Property Rights...are only for

[PortHaven]

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.

Re:Not popular, but here's the truth

[EvilMagnus]

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.

Re:CSS? Doesn't matter if copying

[Nom du Keyboard]

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.

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.

Re:What is IANAL

[Yaotzin]

IANAL is short for I Am Not A Lawyer.

Separate issues

[AeroIllini]

A [lawyer] for the MPAA justified the organization's apparent hypocrisy by saying that Dick had invaded the privacy of some MPAA staffers, which justified the MPAA's actions.

"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. She said Dick spied on the members of the MPAA's Classification and Rating Administration, including going through their garbage and following them as they drove their children to school.

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.

Re:CSS?

[eclectro]

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.

MPAA Rating Response

[duerra]

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."

MPAA Piracy Reporting

[Lhooqtoo]

No more perfect way to quash piracy but to report it to the MPAA. http://www.mpaa.org/ReportPiracy.asp

In a perfect world...

[Storm]

...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.