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: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?

[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.

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: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. . . .

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.

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).