MPAA Caught Pirating a Movie?

The LA Times is reporting that the MPAA admits to having copied the movie This Film is Not Yet Rated (which is about the MPAA ratings system):

The MPAA admitted Monday that it had duplicated "This Film Is Not Yet Rated" without the filmmaker's permission after director Kirby Dick submitted his movie in November for an MPAA rating. The Hollywood trade organization said that it did not break copyright law, insisting that the dispute is part of a Dick-orchestrated "publicity stunt" to boost the film's profile.

From the MPAA site: "Manufacturing, selling, distributing or making copies of motion pictures without the consent of the copyright owner is illegal."

via Blogging Sundance.

Comments

[Rich Drees]

This could be my favorite news story of the day.

[Dan]

It's a non-issue. They didn't commit copyright infringement because you're allowed to make copies for transformative purposes. You just can't distribute those copies. The owner of this copy was the MPAA, so they can share it within their organization. They probably didn't violate the DMCA, either, because they're likely to have a licensed decoding device. Any device that has a license to decode the CSS can be used to do so (and make however many copies you want) without violating the DMCA.

[Stephen]

Mr. Dick: Please, please, please, please sue the MPAA!!

Just saw the movie last night here at Sundance. It is funny and brilliant! See it when you can. Makes this news even better.

[schadelmann]

Hmm...I"m sure the point made above how the MPAA made a legal copy is all well and good but I thought cracking the various copy protection schemes was illegal in any case....funny how the MPAA can do this and yet if an "organization" bought a movie and did the same, the MPAA would sue first and ask questions later.

[peter]

Dan said:

It's a non-issue. They didn't commit copyright infringement because you're allowed to make copies for transformative purposes>>SNIP<<<
--------------
I may be wrong, but don't those obnoxious 60 second ads that r run on some newer DVDs (it shows someone breaking into a car & the voiceover says,"u wouldn't steal a car so don't COPY a DVD".

Since I fast forward through them I can't be sure of this, but don't they say, COPY, not DISTRIBUTE.

Anyway, check out the great thread on AVS forums about those ads.

Those Hollyweird folks r great PR types...what a way to build customer loyalty...assume all those that buy or rent u'r product r going to so something illegal with that product & if they do, the Feds will throw u in prison!

Cheers

You're not allowed to make copies of DVDs for ANY reason, "transformative" or otherwise. If they need more copies, they should buy more. Just try arguing "transformative purposes" when the BSA raids your business for software piracy. "But we're a large corporation, we're entitled to install Windows XP on all our work stations. Dan obviously doesn't know what he's talking about. You can share the original DVD in an organization. You can't copy one DVD to share with everyone. Dan's a complete moron.

"Dick-orchestrated "publicity stunt" "

That just sounds WRONG, if you ask me... LOL

[Dan]

Anonymous Coward: The BSA enforces contract law much more than Copyright law. Copyright law allows for copies to be made under fair us. Transforming the content is fair use. Backup is fair use. You are legally allowed to make a backup of your DVDs using a VCR, though Macrovision algorithms may make the quality of your copy poor or unviewable. The DMCA is what stops you from ripping a DVD to get just the movie out. It doesn't actually stop you from copying it, it just says you can't break CSS without a license saying you can.

Please brush up on your Copyright law before you come in making rash statements. The fact that your example deals much more with contract law shows a distinct lack of knowledge.

peter: Those ads are just ads. They aren't legally binding. Where as their message is true, copying a DVD may be illegal under the DMCA and distributing that DVD would be Copyright infringement, they're worded in layman's terms just to get their message across. Don't put too much weight into these.

If anyone doubts what I'm saying, don't believe me. I really don't care. Go searching online and see for yourself. You should be able to easily find the complete text of the Copyright code, and the DMCA. EFF.org has a lot of case law regarding DVDs and fair use.

"Please brush up on your Copyright law before you come in making rash statements."

You brush up. You don't know the first damn thing about copyright law, as your ignorant comments clearly demonstrated.

"The fact that your example deals much more with contract law shows a distinct lack of knowledge."

I wasn't talking about contract law at all, so that shows what a moron you are. Making copies of DVDs is illegal, even if the MPAA does it. Even if the DVDs aren't protected with CSS. It's still illegal. Just like it's illegal to install software on multiple PCs without a license for each one. The MPAA is in the wrong if they didn't get permission. Period. End of story.

[Kyle]

Dan I am afraid you haven't done much actual work with copyright and it shows.

You completely miss the point. Of course backing up your DVD's is perfectly legal. That is why the MPAA has never ever sued anyone for this even though they claim it is illegal. They would lose in any court case -- and they know it.

But the point is the MPAA claims this EXACT case is illegal.

The issue is the irony.

Indeed the MPAA method and usage in this case is actually much more illegal than what most laymen would do in backing up or time shifting disks since they never bought rights, rental or otherwise.

The MPAA are hypocrites. What else is new???

[Jeff]

I have a question about Netflix and I don't seem to be getting anywhere by asking them. I want the plan where you get one dvd at a time, but say if I wanted to get a TV Show Season that had 4 discs would I only get one disc at a time or all 4 discs?

[Charles]

You just get one at a time.

If they hadn't ADMITTED that they copied it without permission, nobody would have known. That's the real irony. They admitted making the copy, so it's not accurate to say they were "caught pirating." They weren't caught. The FBI task force on DVD piracy has us all quaking in our boots, I'm sure. But the MPAA admitted to making the copy, on the grounds they had a legal right. Meanwhile, they want US to believe their dumb propaganda that ANY copying (including time-shifting or backing up our own DVDs) is illegal. Ha ha ha!

Dan said: "Transforming the content is fair use."

a) Wrong. Go back to copyright 101.
b) they made it clear they did not transform the content.

The MPAA has broken exactly the law they claim to support.

Here is the MPAA defense:
"The MPAA's Bernards, who said Glickman was unavailable for comment, said the organization was operating lawfully when it copied Dick's movie without his or his producer's authorization. "The courts recognize that parties are entitled to make a copy of a work for use as evidence in possible future proceedings," she said."

There is no such defense in breaking copyright. Ther are no "parties" nor ongoing proceedings. If there was such a defense as the MPAA is asserting than every member of the public can copy any film as the film might be be used in some theoretical legal proceeding, no matter how astonomically unlikely, they or ANYONE else might or might not engage in at a future date.

If the MPAA does not sue this copyright holder for invasion of privacy, and an institution cannot, then they are saying one only need claim they might at some future date engage in a suit. this would apply to everyone and would leave out merits of a suit from any challenge to the defense.

I have the right to copy every movie, because I'm going to file a class-action lawsuit over sex, violence, nudity, profanity, and crudity in movies. If your movie has any of those, I declare the right to copy it as evidence in a future trial over media caused corruption of society. Just try to sue me, you bastards. I am only compiling a database of popular films to address their flagrant disregard for moral and religious values.

BTW, even if your movie doesn't contain any violence, sex, nudity, profanity, drug use, crude humor, or criminal acts, I will still copy it as an example of wholesome-ness. If you object to me violating copyright to aid future legal proceedings, talk to the MPAA.

[PlungeBob]

I presume that in order to copy the disk, that
they had to decrypt it first.

Is this not true?

Is this not illegal?

This is the supposed teeth of the DMCA: you own the disk,
and copying it is fair use....but decrypting!
Now, that is illegal.

Crass hypocrisy!

[peter]

Kyle said:
SNIP....Of course backing up your DVD's is perfectly legal. That is why the MPAA has never ever sued anyone for this even though they claim it is illegal. They would lose in any court case -- and they know it.

But the point is the MPAA claims this EXACT case is illegal...SNIP
-----------
BINGO!...u got to the heart of the matter......

I hope one hell of a stink will be raised! If it goes like the usual way when someone or some company/gov gets caught at being a liar/hypocrite/crook (witness the lies of the author who had his ass kissed by that female talkshow host), it'll go in this order:

1 "We didn't do anything wrong"

2 "OK, we made a copy but it was legal"

3 "The press is making this out to be a big deal & it's not"

4 "Well, we were under the impression that it was OK to copy, but we're looking into it & we might have been mistaken in doing it"

5 "Yes, we made a mistake. We deeply & sincerely apologize. We want the public to understand that we really care about them & hold them & the law in the highest regard. Besides which, we love all of you & want u to continue to support our lifestyles of the rich & famous."

Cheers All

"The DMCA is what stops you from ripping a DVD to get just the movie out. It doesn't actually stop you from copying it, it just says you can't break CSS without a license saying you can."

I would say this is false. The only successful application of this law seems to be patent infringement cases against companies making DRM breaking technology.

IE all the case law in this has to do with makers of CSS breaking software violating the Macrovison patent.

There is no case law whatsoever holding up the idea you can't rip a DVD, only a theoretical asssertion never tested by the MPAA despite many opportunities.

It is the same thing as the asertions that dowloading is illegal. There is no case law to support the claim.

"It is the same thing as the asertions that dowloading is illegal. There is no case law to support the claim."

They haven't even proven that UPLOADING files is illegal, have they? They've just scared a few suckers into paying them a few thousand bucks, which doesn't even cover the RIAA/MPAA legal fees of $300-500 an hour (per lawyer). If they tried to sue me, I'd say PISS ON YOU, let's see you convince a jury of your case.

"They haven't even proven that UPLOADING files is illegal, have they?"

yes they have, if you mean uploading copyright material, several of those sued have gone to court and the MPAA and RIAA have lost.

Moreover there are many many cases of copyright holders other than those represented bt the RIAA and MPAA winning cases against parties who uploaded material for example onto websites. A friend of mine won quadrouple damages in a suit eight years ago against a website that used pictures he took.

On downloads it is a totally different issue. No party can prove intent or knowledge by the dowlnloader that the work was copyrighted.

That is why there have been no successful suits or even settlements against downloaders.

For all you know the paragraphs I wrote above are held in copyright by someone else and you just downloaded copyright material.

LOL, I mistyped, that should read:

"yes they have, if you mean uploading copyright material, several of those sued by the MPAA and RIAA have gone to court and have have lost.

But how can they improve knowledge or intent for uploading any more than downloading? You just say you didn't know it was copyrighted. Afterall, files might be sahred with several dozen people before they're even downloaded completely onto your machine (using ed2k or BT). Files are often falsely named. We just say we didn't know what we were getting and never bothered checking it. They can't prove we knew what was uploaded -OR- downloaded. I have lots of files I've never checked.

Do as I say not as I do.

"But how can they improve knowledge or intent for uploading any more than downloading? You just say you didn't know it was copyrighted."

Well, simple, because it is established law. people who claimed they did not know what they uploaded have all lost in court (not just settled).

To upload/distribute the burden of proof on ownership/rights is on the uploader. In essense it is the other way around for the downloader.

Have you followed any of the cases?

"Well, simple, because it is established law. people who claimed they did not know what they uploaded have all lost in court (not just settled)."

That shows that the courts are clueless and do not understand the technology. It's very easy to download files that are NOT labeled accurately. Unless the downloads are vouched for by some reputable site, there's no way to know for sure what you're getting. Common programs like Bit Torrent and eMule download files in random chunks, so there's often no way to check the files while they are fully DL'd. Also, people often become back-logged with hundreds or thousands of files they do not check. The burden should be on the copy right holder to show knowledge and intent.

"To upload/distribute the burden of proof on ownership/rights is on the uploader. In essense it is the other way around for the downloader."

The technology forces you to upload in order to download. It's common for people to label files fraudulently to promote distribution, putting everyone at risk including those who are using the technology for legal purposes (like downloading free Linux distros). Such stupid laws only erode public respect of law and order.

"Have you followed any of the cases?"

No, I have a life. "The law is a ass -- a idiot," as Mr. Bumble noted in Oliver Twist by Charles Dickens.

"often no way to check the files while they are fully DL'd."

Sorry, I meant "UNTIL they are fully DL'd."

[MatildaBright29]

The loans seem to be useful for people, which want to start their own company. In fact, it is very easy to get a collateral loan.