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
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...
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.
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
... 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?
"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
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
But fair use is not grounds for circumventing DRM under the DMCA.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
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
...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