Slashdot Mirror


UK Court: MPAA Not Entitled To Profits From Piracy

jfruh writes "The MPAA and other entertainment industry groups have been locked for years in a legal struggle against Newzbin2, a Usenet-indexing site. Since Newzbin2 profited from making it easier for users to find pirated movies online, the MPAA contends they can sue to take those profits on behalf of members who produced that content in the first place. But a British court has rejected that argument."

11 of 159 comments (clear)

  1. Dear MPAA by Ralph+Spoilsport · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Fuck You. Parasitic Bastards.

    --
    Shoes for Industry. Shoes for the Dead.
    1. Re:Dear MPAA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      The MPAA creates things ? I thought the artists did.

    2. Re:Dear MPAA by Pieroxy · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You aren't much into the MPAA's business model are you? The only thing the MPAA creates it wealth for itself.

  2. Er... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Wouldn't collecting the profits from pirate copies translates into making those copies legit?

    1. Re:Er... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It'd also mean they'd be guilty of receiving the proceeds of crime, a criminal offense in itself.

  3. Asphalt Manufacturers Too! by Bob9113 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Since Newzbin2 profited from making it easier for users to find pirated movies online, the MPAA contends they can sue to take those profits on behalf of members who produced that content in the first place.

    This is a bit like saying that asphalt manufacturers profit from making it easier for getaway drivers to whisk bank robbers away from the scene of the crime.

    1. Re:Asphalt Manufacturers Too! by Sperbels · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Well... don't they?

  4. Hopefully... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The world is finally getting sick and tired of hearing stupid shit from the MPAA/RIAA media mafia.

    I know i sure am...

    On another silly note. I deserve profits for life because i worked on construction of all MPAA buildings. I'll be waiting for my royalty check you deadbeat fucks.
    Sounds pretty stupid. But hey. That's what you're arguing on some non physical property. So pay me now. Or forever shut the fuck up.

    I also paid taxes that built the roads that the mpaa uses every day. I'll need a kickback on that too. For life.

    I also had children. Future mpaa customers. You need to pay me for providing those. If it wasn't for me you'd have less customers in the future.
    An exponential number of future customers all because of me... Pay up now.

    What? That's all stupid as fuck? Go fuck myself? Well now you know how the world feels about you mpaa assholes....

  5. Re:My point exactly! by julesh · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I've been comparing so-called piracy to historic real estate squatting, rather than comparing it to stealing or thievery as has become the propaganda of Big Content. When a court compares it to real estate trespass, it's recognizing the same disingenuous manipulation of Big Content's propaganda.

    Exactly. Now we just need a law saying that if we infringe on copyright for 10 years without the owner doing anything to intervene, the copyright becomes ours... not only does it make the comparison to tresspassing/squatting even more accurate and obvious, it's also a useful solution to the orphan works problem.

  6. Re:Well, of course. by admiral+snackbar · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I disagree. I am very sure that whenever the MPAA wins a lawsuit (and unfortunately that happens too), they will publish the result in order to inform/intimidate the public as to the validity of their claims. If the times when the MPAA loses are not published, people might get the perception that the MPAA always wins. Which would be bad.

  7. Re:Headline grossly misleading? by BobTheLawyer · · Score: 5, Insightful

    absolutely correct. The case was not about whether MPAA could sue Newzbin for damages - it is clear that under English law it can. But to do so, the MPAA would need to show its members suffered loss, and the MPAA could then only recover for their loss. The members' loss has no direct relationship with Newzbin's profits - it could be more than Newzbin's profits; it could be less than Newzbin's profits.

    In fact pretty hard to show what the MPAA members' loss is - and this case was about a crafty attempt by the MPAA to avoid that difficulty.

    The argument was that Newzbin's profits actually belonged to the MPAA members (in the same way that if you steal my bike, the bike still belongs to me, and if you steal my cash, I can have a proprietary right in your bank account of the same amount). Would be a great result for the MPAA, as they would then simply take the all profit and not need to show any loss. The slight problem was that there was no legal authority for such a claim, and so they lost

    Bob