MPAA Makes Unauthorized Copies of DVD 424
An anonymous reader writes "There's a story on ArsTechnica about how the MPAA has admitted that they made unauthorized copies of a movie. That in itself is a bit of tasty hypocrisy, but if it turns out that they ripped a DVD, then the MPAA could find themselves in violation of the DMCA." From the article: "According to Mark Lemley, a professor at the Stanford Law School, the MPAA may have been within its rights to make copies of the film. Given that the MPAA's intent isn't financial gain and that the whole situation may rise above the level of trading barbs through the media into legal action, making a copy may be justified. Personally, I can't see any justification for an organization such as the MPAA ignoring a directive from a copyright owner, but IANAL." Update: 01/24 19:52 GMT by Z : Made title more accurate.
More info in the original unspun article (Score:3, Informative)
Depending on how many copies they made and who they gave them to, there does seem to be some grounds for a fair use defense.
Bah, that's nothing. (Score:5, Informative)
In Germany police raided the GVU, take server (Score:5, Informative)
Re:More info in the original unspun article (Score:5, Informative)
There used to be a company called "321 Studios" that sold backup software. Guess what happened to them?
Consumers CAN'T Encrypt (Score:3, Informative)
DMCA (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Uh Oh... (Score:5, Informative)
In this sense, the copyright owner need not complain at all. Anyone may report the crime to law enforcement (it being a federal law, that would probably be the FBI), and it is their duty to investigate and then prosecute if the evidence supports it.
Nothing in copyright law nor the DMCA implies that profit need be a motive or that the copyright holder was financially harmed by the act. Look it up.
Re:Not popular, but here's the truth (Score:2, Informative)
IANAL but I believe that it has been held up in the courts many times that you have no expectations of privacy in a public place.
NC-17 (Score:2, Informative)
From what I have heard... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Uh Oh... (Score:5, Informative)
Your post is incorrect.
First, it's DVDs that are encrypted with CSS, not CDs, which normally are not encrypted at all. Second, while yes, the anti-circumvention statute would apply, it's unclear whether the MPAA would have violated it; it depends on whether or not they defeated CSS, or just copied the DVD with CSS intact. Third, not all violations of the DMCA are crimes -- the law does more than just set up anti-circumvention provisions. Fourth, copyright infringement can be criminal, under the right circumstances, and circumvention is civilly actionable, just as copyright is.
In this sense, the copyright owner need not complain at all. Anyone may report the crime to law enforcement (it being a federal law, that would probably be the FBI), and it is their duty to investigate and then prosecute if the evidence supports it.
Fifth, the FBI and Department of Justice have discretion in choosing what crimes to investigate and who to prosecute, as they have limited resources. Reporting this to them could easily result in no criminal case ever even beginning. While it might not hurt to report with them, a victim with a cause of action should pursue his own case, regardless of law enforcement.
Nothing in copyright law nor the DMCA implies that profit need be a motive or that the copyright holder was financially harmed by the act.
True, but these can have an impact. For example, the MPAA may have here a good claim to fair use, since their interest in the film is in looking into the privacy of their employees, rather than making copies as a substitute for getting them from the Best Buy. If they're looking in to their legal remedies against the filmmaker, if they have any, this too strengthens their defense.
Re:CSS? Doesn't matter if copying (Score:4, Informative)
CSS doesn't prevent copying. It never has prevented copying. CSS is an attempt to prevent playback on non-licensed players, or players not matching the region code of the movie. A bit-by-bit copy of a CSS-encrypted DVD can be made without "breaking CSS", and that copy will play just as well as the many mass produced copies of the original do.
CSS was never about copying a DVD to another DVD. It is about control over not letting the DVD be easily transformed into any other form for playback in non-licensed (and royalty generating, btw) players.
Re:CSS? (Score:2, Informative)
Re:What is IANAL (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Statutory Damages (Score:5, Informative)
We've had statutory damages since the 1790 Copyright Act, and IIRC, it was in the Statute of Anne, which was even earlier. Over the years, the amount has increased (and MPAA has lobbied in favor of that), but the idea's always been there.
Presently statutory damages are within a range of $750 - 30,000. If the infringement was intentional, the ceiling can rise to $150,000. In rare cases, the floor can drop to $200. A few defendants -- never you -- in exceptional cases can get the floor dropped to $0. In some circumstances, statutory damages may not be available to the plaintiff; he'll have to sue for actual damages. Of course, injunctive relief, fees, costs, etc. are also available, and you needn't just pick one.
However, these are the numbers for works infringed, not the number of infringements. That is, if you make a million copies of Star Wars, the most you can possibly be liable for is $150,000. But if you make one copy of Star Wars and one copy of Empire, then you could be liable for $300,000, since there are two works infringed upon now, not just the one.
The relevant statute is 17 USC 504.
Re:Bah, that's nothing. (Score:5, Informative)
<summary>
The GVU (The German analog to the MPAA) had its Hamburg offices raided today after a criminal investigation into the German warez scene turned up at least one server and warez group being actively funded by the the GVU. The GVU paid the admin of the server (called "IOH", located in Frankfurt) for access to server logs, sort of as a "honeypot" setup. They were collecting information about warez distribution, but they additionally paid for hardware upgrades to the server as well. The investigation is trying to determine whether they also paid for the bandwidth and additional infrstructure for the server operation.
</summary>
I'm sorry, this takes astonishing gall. The article denotes this as a major, high-capacity warez server, which would mean it hosted and handled a huge amount of copyrighted material. It looks to me like a case where the GVU decided "we're the good guys, so we don't have to follow the laws." I can only hope some nice, schadenfreude-laden prosecution comes out of this.