Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

MPAA Violates Another Software License

Posted by Zonk on from the that's-a-little-cold dept.

Patrick Robib, a blogger who wrote his own blogging engine called Forest Blog recently noticed that none other than the MPAA was using his work, and had completely violated his linkware license by removing all links back to the Forest Blog site, not crediting him in any way. The MPAA blog was using the Forest Blog software, but had completely stripped off his name, and links back to his site. He only found about it accidentally when he happened to visit the MPAA site.

7 of 297 comments (clear)

  1. Maybe they should be investigated som more by viking80 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I am quite sure MPAA would fail in many similar regards if someone would take the effort to investigate.

    --
    don't cut it off www.mgmbill.org
  2. Re:How hard is it to check the license? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The issue is that strict copyright law is basically unenforcable. This isn't 10 rich guys and 30 lawers going, "Muwhahaha", this is some web team figuring that they're no different from the thousands of other coders like us that break the occasional license unbeknownst to our bosses.
    It's not that strict copyright law is unenforceable, it's the fact that the culture overwhelmingly looks at copyright as a minor violation.
  3. Update on his site by creativeHavoc · · Score: 5, Insightful

    http://www.patrickrobin.co.uk/default.asp?Display= 5 The MPAA claim that it was in use only privatly and they had no advertising. Good to know. If they ever come knocking, I will tell them I watched the movies and home and never sold them to anyone.

    --
    insight through the mind
  4. Re:Here's the "/." response: by NormalVisual · · Score: 5, Insightful

    In other words when informed they do the correct thing about it.

    How many of the targets of **AA action were afforded the opportunity to just say the same thing - "okay, sorry, I took it down, and it wasn't really meant for public consumption anyway, so we didn't do anything wrong", as opposed to being on the wrong end of a settlement demand?

    --
    Please stand clear of the doors, por favor mantenganse alejado de las puertas
  5. DMCA by dekkerdreyer · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Simply send a DMCA take down notice to their ISP requesting that the site be taken down because it is infringing.

    --
    Dekker Dreyer
  6. Re:How hard is it to check the license? by kevinbr · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "....Stealing a copy of something leaves behind no evidence...."

    Over and over.....copying is not stealing. It is copying. There is a difference. The powers that be LOVE when people call copying stealing. If I steal an object - you no longer have the object. If I copy an object, you still have the object. Copyright is a givernment granted monopoly so what I am doing in copying is ignoring your monopoly. What I actually do with that copy then defne the damage that potentially could occur to your income from that copy.

    I grew up copying my friends albums on tapes. We all bought stuff, but no one bleated then about stealing. We called it sharing.

    How many people out there are buying NOYTHING and only aquiring music via copying. Very few I would imagine.

  7. Re:Its sorta legit.... by TheRaven64 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Should we have decided to make the move to production, then we would have paid the 25 Pounds that would have authorized us to run a version of the blog without the logos and links. So, presumably, that means it's fine for me to download films created by MPAA members as long as I say I'll buy the DVD if I like them?
    --
    I am TheRaven on Soylent News