MPAA Violates Another Software License

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.

Comments

Re:How hard is it to check the license?

[SirSlud]

Thats not the issue really. 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.

If anything, this is like the futility to pointing out that MPAA or RIAA heads' family members pirate content. At the end of the day, what are people against the copyright lobby fighting for? Some say downright incorrect prosecution, which obviously happens, but underneath it all, its the result of a lack leniancy and less strict laws. The only reason that breaking a "Linkware" license is news is because of it highlites that copyright laws are, in the end, only selectively enforced, not because of some organizational hypocricy. The hypocricy basically is unintentional, and to me, thats really what the problem is. Its not some blatent flogging, its just the old adage of the impractibility of ensuring that those around you practise what you preach. Getting onto that soapbox and being adamant about how you live your life is in no way an argument against an organzation that is hypocritical for the very reason that it is not one single person but a large organization of people. Its like some company saying that j-walking in all cases, always, everytime, hurts their bottom line; it'd take you less than 10 minutes if you had full access to everyone at a company to spot apparent hypocricy, but that wouldn't be the time to point out, "Hey, *I* don't j-walk." Its not revelent, because at some point, the eagerness of enforcement is more relevant than the actual law.

Re:Well, not anymore...

[anagama]

Don't worry, after they pay for the Forest Blog software, they'll ... um ... they won't be able to buy a corporate lunch. Not bankruptcy I suppose, but something.

Note, at present exchange rate, the permision to remove the links is $97.

Oh, the sweet paradox for Slashdot.

[Anonymous Coward]

If you hold the MPAA to the law on this, then it is a tacit acknowledgement that I.P. is a valid thing. You can't have it both ways, Slashdot.

Re:Done

[Anonymous Coward]

Already been done. I will contact the BSA in the morning as they most likely have all sorts of unlicensed software from BSA members laying around.

Apply MPAA logic

[mattr]

One respondent to TFA suggested using the MPAA's own logic against them in court. Another suggested suing them in small claims court which is apparently much easier.

I submit that a software author is the same as a music CD author on an artistic level, perhaps more so since he does not have all the studio people to massage his work into something palatable.

If this artist is left on his own, he could make some cash in small claims court, or at least his 150 pound license fee if he is not the litigous sort perhaps.

However I think this is also a very good opportunity for a big guns lawyers supplied perhaps by the EFF to find the paper where the MPAA writes down its killer legal strategies, and tear it up into tiny pieces, much as IBM is doing to SCO.

Equate software to music. Equate running softare or viewing a webpage as a "performance" in the legal sense. Use MPAA rules. Since the license costs about $100, calculate based on a 300% markup over a $35 average MPAA cd price. The sum will be punitive damages for theft, plus the 300% of what the MPAA sues for a song, plus the price of a "performance" multiplied by the number of visits to any of the blog's pages, based on the evidence of the MPAA's server logs which is must produce in court. Although this sounds over the top, it is simply using the same non-common-sensical strategy the MPAA is using in court, and I think a judge and jury might just see justice in that, or at least a reason not to throw the case out.

I think this ought to net a nice award for the author.

When you think about it, SCO has lasted this long because it is like a pathogen that bends the organism that is the legal system to its intent, far beyond the realm of common sense: If they don't show the infringing code it is common sense that they ought not be able to argue beyond that. The MPAA also also exhibits pathogenic qualities; it sues its own customers for such outrageous sums that it is not only beyond common sense, you have to wonder if their worth is based more on legal games than actually what their members sell. Unless we take advantage of such amazing incidents as this one and use their own weapons against them, it will just continue. We now have a chance to stir up some talk about whether the MPAA is also over the top, and what to do about it.

Re:Maybe they should be investigated som more

[Mistlefoot]

While I hope this is true - it would look good on the MPAA

1) The screencaps show very little detail
2) "Dan Glickman Forum" from the screencaps turn up nothing in Google.
3) The line provided http://www.mpaa.org/blog_default.asp doesn't exist, isn't found in google OR the wayback machine and the home page back in September 06 looks very much like it does today - I don't find any obvious links to this.

If the MPAA accuses me of stealing files they had better produce some evidence and I damn well expect (not that they desterve it) that evidence has to be provided on this.

Of course my Google skills might not be up to snuff - but come on community, find the evidence while it still exists - if it did at all.

Re:How hard is it to check the license?

[SirSlud]

Chicken, meet egg.

I was ready to flame but have ultimately decided that its the same thing. Culture sees it as a minor violation because the current legal definition of copyright is unenforcable. Its a minor problem precisely because going after every violater leads to two conclusions: its rights granted by current copyright law are too strong, and most people know somebody that should be locked up for violating it.

Its pretty much the same thing. My original post was more about saying that if, as an individual, you don't violate it, you might as well suggest that it'd be okay if wearing green coloured shirts were illegal because you don't own any green shirts. The fact is that peopel violate copyright law all the time, and if we had some magical transporter that put all these folks into jail right this minute, society would cease to function.

Re:Well, not anymore...

[aussie_a]

Oh if that's how the RIAA (and I imagine MPAA) worked getting sued them would be a hardship rather then simply ridiculous. No, the MPAA has to pay 100 million dollars for every page they have that lacks the link (so if they've made 10 blog posts, that's at least 10 pages).

Re:How hard is it to check the license?

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

It's not that strict copyright law is unenforceable, it's the fact that the culture overwhelmingly looks at copyright as a minor violation.

In the age of digital copies, strict copyright law is unenforceable.

Regular theft leaves evidence behind - the stolen item is gone - you know you have been robbed. Stealing a copy of something leaves behind no evidence. If you do not know it has been stolen, you can not even begin to start looking for the thief.

Someone is likely to pipe in that there is evidence of theft - the stolen item/copy itself. Before that someone starts piping, ask yourself just how many crimes are investigated because the cops found a guy with stolen items versus how many are investigated because something went missing? I am going to SWAG and say at least 1:10,000 maybe even 1:100,000, which is about as good an example of unenforceable as you are going to get. Of course those 1 out of 10 thousand cases have about a 100% success rate, but that's only because the crimes are already solved by the time they are discovered.

Re:Maybe they should be investigated som more

[Peet42]

The third screenshot is of an article that was published by Glickman in "Variety":

http://www.variety.com/article/VR1117931921.html?c ategoryid=9&cs=1

Now, it's possible that he was lazy and just dumped an article he was paid for straight into his BLOG, but it's equally likely the screenshot was faked using data that was already out there. :-/

Re:Well, not anymore...

[anagama]

Actually, we're both wrong. Somehow, I red the 25 pounds as 50. Since they're only running 1 commercial blog, the price is 25 pounds. http://www.hostforest.co.uk/Purchase/default.asp

Re:Maybe they should be investigated som more

[heroofhyr]

I have a strange question: why is the article he supposedly took a screenshot from dated September 29th, 2006, but the calendar for the archive of posts is February 2007? I thought perhaps the calendar in this software might display the current month regardless of which post you're reading, but if you look at this link to the author of the programme's own site, here, you'll see that the calendar does indeed change with the post you're reading. Which means the article on the MPAA blog is supposedly from over 3 months ago but the calendar is showing this month. Either the screencap is faked, the web admin who set up the software doesn't know what the fuck he's doing, or the software needs work. There's also no mention of the blog ever being there in Google or the Internet Archive despite the former surely having a copy and the latter already having an index of tens of thousands of pages from the MPAA site, and not a single one of them matching a search for this blog. Maybe the guy just wants to do some viral marketing, maybe he supports the MPAA philosophically and wants a bunch of overhyped, gullible nerds to get upset so he can make them look foolish later. Or maybe it is legitimate and he just happens to have stumbled upon the site, the link just happens to be taken down, and all mention of it from the face of the Internet has disappeared forever. That seems really likely.

Re:Well, not anymore...

[h2g2bob]

How reliable is the source? No pages link to the blog, and the blog isn't listed on Google.

I smell something, and for one it isn't MAFIAA. Free advertising for ForrestBlog anyone!?

Re:DMCA

[indaba]

Which section of the DMCA are you claiming they are violating ?

Here's a handy link so you can let us all know : http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c105:H.R.228 1:

Its sorta legit....

[Em Ellel]

The article needs update

short of it is:

MPAA Response:

The material has been removed from our Web server.

        * No Web links were ever provided to the blog.
        * The blog was never assigned a domain name.
        * The blog was never advertised to the public in any way.
        * The material on the server was a proof of concept awaiting approval to move into production.
        * The blog was only ever used for testing purposes.
        * 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.

Re:How hard is it to check the license?

[RKThoadan]

And yet I have gotten a speeding ticket for going 65 in a 55 before, and the RIAA / MPAA is getting tons of money from those they are threatening with lawsuits. Sure, they can't get everybody, but that doesn't mean it's unenforceable, it just means it's less likely that it will be enforced for any given transgression. In fact, it is quite easy for them to enforce them when they choose to.

lol

[jschwetz]

*By 2007, IDC Research expects Internet users will access, download, and share information equivalent to the contents of the entire Library of Congress more than 64,000 times every day.

Re:Maybe they should be investigated som more

[hahiss]

I've never been audited (since I'm just a faculty member and I don't use proprietary software), so I cannot vouch for its accuracy, but here's a description from an attorney that works in the field:

http://blawg.bsadefense.com/2006/12/bsa_timeline.h tml

Personally, I'd be tempted to farm out the communication with the BSA to the chaps who write the responses for the Pirate Bay. . . .

It was found, how?

[wytcld]

If as the MPAA says there were never any Web links to the blog, then how did the author of the software stumble upon it? No Web links equals no search engine listings equals effective invisibility to the outside world.

Re:New Defense Offered

[Em Ellel]

So, when they sue me for music sharing I can use the following?: Well, if they sue you for music sharing, I'd be surprised, they are MPAA, not RIAA. But since you don't seem to understand the difference between blog software and music, let me RIAA'lize your excuses

1. No html links were ever pointed to my music The music in question was never placed in location it could be played back from.

2. My music was never assigned a domain name The music was never burned to an audio cd or placed on portable music player.

3. The music was never advertised to the public in any way (only privately) If you used any P2P app, this is probably a barefaced lie as most any P2P automatically advertise you sharing this file (thus P2P name) Although you can claim you only shared in a closed P2P system.

4. The music in the file sharing program was a proof of concept and never moved into production The music in the file sharing program was a proof of concept and was never listened to.

5. The music in the file sharing program was only used for testing purposes This one works on its own

6. Should I have decided to make the move to production, then I would have paid the appropiate royalty fees Should I decide to actually LISTEN to this music, I would have purchased a license.

Some of these are kinda weak, but you get the point. Music audience is you, software audience is NOT MPAA.

-Em

Re:How hard is it to check the license?

[Wizard Drongo]

I hate to respond to that, but..
Me.

I don't have much money. I'm poor. I'm also a student with a fair amount (probably around $30,000 USD) in student loans i'll be paying back for a fair while.

I don't waste my money on something that I'll probably only listen to a few times. I occasionally buy dvd's, usually out of the bargain bucket in Tescos, since my taste in film is for good films, not the mass-market drivel pumped out nowadays.

I don't buy music. Waste of money. In the past I have downloaded a fair amount. If, due to legalities or actualities I was no longer able to do so, I'd go without. I can live without others thoughts on the world; I have my own thoughts, impressions and music to fill the void if I have to. I have on a few occasions download music from iTunes, usually something that particularly moved me or inspired me. I didn't mind paying for this, given the price was minimal (about what I think reasonable to cover their overheads and bandwidth) and it didn't waste any more resources. CD's cost a huge amount in resources, oil for the plastics, various other chemicals for the binder etc, energy to create and process these raw materials etc., distribution and packaging costs. All for a hunk of data I can copy from a server safe in the knowledge that apart from the energy needed for the transfer, I've not contributed to the rape of the planet, since the server was already there, and even if it wasn't, one server can serve billions of songs in it's life.

I judge that as being morally and ethically superior to buying CD's in a shop and supporting these nazis in their quest for more money.

Since they've admitted to having done it

[symbolset]

The next logical step would be to subpoena every computer, hard drive and backup tape in the organization, worldwide, as discovery in a lawsuit to recover damages.

I'm certain their own seizure subpoenas could be referenced for precedent and legal justification.

But I Am Not A Lawyer.

Re:True, but not exactly true - follow up needed

[Danse]

After doing some similar research, I came to the conclusion it is either a clever marketing ploy by blog author, or more likely some hidden prototype site their web development team was using and as it was never linked from main page, it was never found by any spiders (yet referrers to authors site showed up in his logs, which is exactly how he found out about it), Turns out the latter is the case

Yeah, well they had it set up on a public-facing web server, accessible by anyone. You don't test software on a public server. Given that the MPAA is not exactly known for being a forgiving bunch, I don't think their excuses amount to much. If they had some public goodwill, I could see giving them a pass on it, but they seem to feel so strongly about copyright infringement that it just wouldn't seem right to let them off on this. I'm sure they would agree, right? If copyright infringement is so terrible, surely they should be facing a really hefty fine here, right? Maybe some jail time? If they're going to insist on strict enforcement, then they had better get their own affairs and people under some seriously tight control too.

A small step

[bluepinstripe]

Not that there should be any doubt, but we can all take a small (which may become large) step to let the MPAA know how we feel by sending an e-mail to the MPAA to report the their theft of intellectual property. The e-mail address is hotline@mpaa.org. You can also find the e-mail address on their fim theft page. The contents of my e-mail are as follows:

To Whom It May Concern:

This e-mail is not to report the theft of a movie, but the theft of another type of intellectual property: software. The perpetrator is your organization, the MPAA.

By using the Forest Blog bloggin engine, either directly or as the results of the actions of another party, you have violated the linkware license to the Forest Blog blogging engine by removing all links back to the Forest Blog site, failing to credit the original author in any way.

Until such time as the MPAA can develop and implement a plan that demonstrates an understanding of the importance of intellectual property rights for all types of intellectual property, your efforts to guard against the theft of your intellectual property in light of your theft of intellectual property will be viewed as the farce it is.

Sincerely,
[your name here]

Re:True, but not exactly true - follow up needed

[rtb61]

That idea reminds me of the commercials on DVDs saying that piracy supports organised crime. Well based upon the actual historical track record and organised crimes well known willingness and even desire to invest in the RIAA and the MPA members media, after all, "sex, drugs and rock and roll" or "the casting couch" or the media industries well known addiction to cocaine etc, the opposite is far more likely to be true.

So the actual reality is closer to this idea, that if you really want to hurt organised crime, you a far more morally compelled to pirate media and distribute it for free and as a result, cut off a substantial portion of their income.

As a bonus, just think of all the 'artists' (well at least in their own minds) you will be saving from a life of drunken, drugged up depravity ;-) (instead they will look forward to long healthy life as food service professionals and as a double plus, we get to avoid the endlessly monotonous exposure to their aberrant behaviour).