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 "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
.... 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.
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
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
More precisely, they are often copied not for financial gain but to curb financial loss.
"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
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
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.
He must be a Red Hat user.
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
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