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.
Uh Oh... (Score:5, Interesting)
HAHAHA (Score:3, Interesting)
Let me laugh a little longer...
From TFA: "The Motion Picture Association of America was caught with its pants down, admitting to making unauthorized copies of the documentary This Film Is Not Yet Rated in advance of this week's Sundance Film Festival."
"MPAA made copies of the film to distribute them to its employees"
It doesn't get any more ironic than this...
Perfect (Score:5, Interesting)
I would propose that indeed the creators of this film have lost money, and that all of those employees who received copies were almost absolutely going to have purchased the movie (since it is about them).
I would hope that both criminal and civil suits are filed. As they potentially broke criminal law by cracking any protection in making the copy.
I hope this is widely publicized, as it is clear evidence that this group does not care about the law or moral implications of the piracy, but rather is only concerned in doing what serves them best.
I for one will be sending emails to the producers of my favorite news shows urging them to cover the story, hopefully all of you will do the same.
Re:Uh Oh... (Score:5, Interesting)
It'll only get fun if the film maker decides to try to take it somewhere. Right now it looks like the film wasn't harmed financially, and I don't think the film maker has a major studio backing him with financial and legal muscle. He'll probably milk it for publicity, and it'll all go away. Or at most be something we point to for the next five years or until the MPAA does something else stupid, whichever comes first.
C'mon Man! (Score:3, Interesting)
When you're a giant corproration with a ton of lawyers, lobbyists and a congressperson or two, laws are for other people!
Sheesh!
MjM
Difficult to see? (Score:5, Interesting)
Call me sceptical, but if I were a ratings association and wanted a film exposing my practices burried, I would slap an NC-17 label on it and make sure it was tucked far away from public sight. But now that this article has surfaced, I want to see it, to see if it really does have graphic secual content, or if the MPAA was just trying to hush a movie.
-Rick
Nothing new here, but milk that publicity! (Score:5, Interesting)
I suspect it'll be the same with this guy. His case is better than mine, I'd think, as he's got legal resources to some degree I'd think. However, my bet is that in terms of an overall payoff, all this is going to produce for him is perhaps some free press.
I wish him the best, regardless! Way to expose these folks
This sort of thing is common (Score:5, Interesting)
After the talk, I went up with a single question- "Did you clear public performance rights for that? iTunes downloads are for personal use only."
He instantly answered that he had, but given that he was a RIAA laywer, who knows? I'd put money that he formally hadn't, but had just assumed either being from RIAA or fair use covered it. My faculty use stuff from iTunes commonly in their classes- technically they can't except under some strict conditions, but my counsel has been to go ahead provided they take reasonable steps to make sure it stays inside the class.
Statutory damages!!!! =Profit! (Score:5, Interesting)
It could be profitable :0
wtfff (Score:2, Interesting)
As I understand it, fair use copying is basically for backup purposes only. If any one of those copies left the office place, and strict domain of the "Job" giving them the right to access one of these copies...sounds pretty clear cut violation to me.
I can copy a DVD and let it sit on my shelf while i watch the original, i can watch the copy and let the original sit on the shelf, i can watch the original in one room while a friend watches the copy in another room, but as soon as original leaves my possession, i must destroy the copies, and as soon as i let my friend borrow just he copy, i get sued. So basically, the "copies" of the dvd must have been used strictly in the same manner that the original could have been used. I.E. employees cannot take them home.
Re:Does that mean that..... (Score:3, Interesting)
Second, INAL but, you bring up a good point, and it's bigger than just the MPAA. New laws often have gaps, situations they don't expect, and therefore aren't covered. (At work I'm dealing with a situation not covered in ERISA) The DMAC was meant to be omnibus, but it isn't, partly due to the fact that it's new, partly due to the fact that the technology is so new. Also we have conflicting laws and judicial president, DMAC vs. Betamax for example. Then add in another few levels of conflicting interests like, say the MPAA, Blockbuster, Internet users, time shifters, Independent film producers, and suddenly the water gets very murky from a legal standpoint.
Right now media experiencing so much flux that it would be imposable to draft any sort of license that will last, unless it takes into account how the market and technology will adapt. I imagine a media policy that dose allow for such adaptations would end up looking like the GPL.
Re:Uh Oh... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:More info in the original unspun article (Score:3, Interesting)
So there was a way around his do not copy commandment and still be able to rate the movie. That pretty well moots their defense IMO.
Frankly I feel there may be more than just a $50,000(?) fine involved for the copyright violation, if only because there are enough attorneys around that some of them might even do the prosecution of this case pro bono just to see the shoe on the other foot for a change.
For all our more or less good natured attorney bashing that goes on here, believe it or not I have met a few honest human beings with a sense of whats right and wrong. Sometimes tainted by their legal schooling admittedly, but it can be detected from time to time.
--
Cheers, Gene
More info (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Financial gain? (Score:3, Interesting)
I, freely admitting that I am a "pirate", would certainly be willing to pay what I feel a work is worth if I had the money. Some download just to do it, some do it because they want to listen before they buy, some do it because they can't pay for it. The funny thing is if I had not been able to gain access to different kinds of music through the Internet by way of reccomendations, I would have never bought my last 10 or so CDs (I usually buy a CD or 2 every year).
Other issues aside, I'd also be more likely to buy more music if I knew more than $.50 was getting to the actual creator of the song. In fact, unless the state of affairs gets better, I might completely stop buying music, but continue downloading it. If I like it, I'll mail the artist(s) a check for what I think I owe them.
Yes, all of what I'm advocating is illegal, but I don't think its unethical. I believe the law is wrong so I won't follow it. If I get caught, then the **AA and the government can have at me. I don't think any jury would find me liable to the tune of millions of dollars, and even if they did, there is no blood left in this turnip.
Separate issues (Score:4, Interesting)
A classic straw man argument. These are two totally separate issues, but the MPAA is trying to make it sound like they are linked.
Kirby followed MPAA employees and went through their trash during the filming of his movie. This is a possible stalking charge, and perhaps invasion of privacy. I'm not a lawyer, so I don't know the exact charges that would be listed, but his actions are clearly on the edge of legality.
The MPAA made unauthorized copies of the movie. Who these copies were distributed to is totally irrelevant; the point is that the copies were made and distributed, even after the MPAA was asked in an email from Kirby *not* to make copies of the film. (Against the wishes of the copyright holder.)
Possibly, the MPAA ripped the film from a DVD. If this DVD is protected with CSS, then the MPAA is also guilty of a DMCA violation. (The article does not say why.) Who did the ripping, and why, is irrelevant in the eyes of the DMCA.
If this goes to trial, these issues will be dealt with separately. Kirby's actions do not automatically exempt the MPAA from copyright infringement and copyright protection circumvention charges, nor does the fact that the MPAA ignored his wishes as copyright holder exempt him from having to answer for his actions during filming.
Re:CSS? (Score:4, Interesting)
Actually not. The DMCA and copyright term extension act (CTEA) was passed in 1998, before the amount of filesharing we have today. I was tempted to say "widespread", but when you consider the demographics and the population of the US at 300 million I would make a safe bet that the number of filesharers is miniscule and that truly "most people" do not illegally download. Except if you are on a college campus.
Also, unbiased scientific studies at Harvard have been done that show that there is no economic harm caused by downloading. I suspect that the *AAs go after people to prevent it from becoming a normal, accepted practice by the populace even though there are strict as can be (short of the death penalty, maybe the *AAs can buy that law next) to prevent it. Thus having a digital "prohibition". This is the only reason I can think of, other than trying to justify their existence.
Downloading actually made "Battlestar Galactica" a TV hit and made it "appointment TV" after many dissed it before it ran because of having a female Starbuck.
I doubt that a grainy "Star Wars" prequel making it to the web stopped anybody (even those that downloaded it) from going to the movie or buying the DVD later. Nor will it stop people from taping it when it makes it to cable. Also, if you notice the content on the torrent sites is a very narrow genre of current movies (i.e. scifi). There are no old movies (older than a year) nore any lesser known movies. By any stretch of the imagination, it is no Netflix.
Also, the copyright term extension act (CTEA) does absolutely nothing to prevent the downloading of content (except a little bit of crap made in 1924) and was nothing but a congressional handout to a large corporation (Disney) by a senator that loves the entertainment biz (my very own Orrin Hatch - he has his own song and CDs out that the entertainment biz makes sure he receives $28,000 a year royalties for). In my opinion, this is the most egregious of the two (and I won't go into why here), though others may justifiably disagree,
So your original statement above is simplistic and inaccurate. "Abuse of the system" actually was started by congress when they lengthened copyright 11 times in recent history, and never provided any "balance" for the end user. Further abuses will shortly take place with hardwired DRM. "Abuse of the system" is when a copyright infringer is subject to worst penalty than rapists are. "Abuse of the system" is having a congress that whores themselves out at a drop of the hat (I hope Abrahamoff sings like a canary). I could go on.
So in short, there really was nothing to "ruin for the rest of us". But rather it's an industry that is incapable of managing their product despite the strongest copyright laws ever.
Re:Uh Oh... (Score:1, Interesting)
But they won't. Not enough upside for all the paperwork they'd have to do.
I purchased what was represented as an original PAL VHS of Disney's SONG OF THE SOUTH on eBay a couple years back. When the tape arrived, it was an NTSC dupe with shoddy inkjet labels. After trying unsuccessfully to get a refund from the seller [and having him call me names], I took the tape and the seller's information to the local FBI field office. They told me it just wasn't worth their time. I did appreciate their honesty, though.
On a side note, The Walt Disney Co. doesn't care about small-time piracy of their properties either. When I called Disney's legal dept., they told me they weren't really interested in the info and I should go ahead and keep the tape.
Re:Uh Oh... (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm not sure about that.
Some copyright-enforcement mechanisms for CD-ROMs, like SecuROM and SafeDisc, look for particular quirks in the format of data storage on the CD that indicates that it's authentic. Of course, utilities like DAEMON Tools now provide access to ISOs in a manner that emulates the quirks in the original media, for the purpose of fooling the copyright enforcement mechanism into thinking that the ISO is the authentic media. Now, good luck presenting an argument in court that this isn't "circumvention" of the copyright mechanism.
Similarly, the purpose of CSS is to prevent the content from being playable on any copied DVD. Are you sure that "circumvention" is limited to extracting the content without the CSS wrapper - and excludes making a copy of the DVD that looks authentic to the CSS protection?
Fifth, the FBI and Department of Justice have discretion in choosing what crimes to investigate and who to prosecute, as they have limited resources.
That's true. But much more importantly, criminal prosecution has always been an extremely political decision. I really can't see the State of California filing suit against one of its major businesses for a fairly minor and technical criminal violation; the political cost would be too high.
the MPAA may have here a good claim to fair use...
Not sure about this.
The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has construed the crime of DMCA circumvention as inherently requiring some kind of underlying copyright violation - i.e., if there's no actual copyright violation, then there's no DMCA liability. Unfortunately, that statutory construction is suspect for a number of reasons. (The CAFC's reasoning is large based on the positioning of the DMCA within 17 USC, the copyright laws... which seems, at best, alarmingly squishy logic.) This is problematic because the DMCA liability clause is very clear, and very clearly doesn't mention "underlying copyright violation" or anything remotely similar. The Supreme Court of the United States has not yet weighed in, so the future of the DMCA might be interesting.
In other words: The DMCA may or may not require proof of some kind of copyright violation in connection with the act of circumvention. If it does, then fair use is a valid defense to the underlying copyright violation, and can be used to fend off DMCA liability. If it does not, then fair use is no defense whatsoever to DMCA liability.
- David Stein
Re:Uh Oh... (Score:4, Interesting)
(The kind of estoppel you're suggesting is like trying to sue someone for theft of your illegal narcotics stash. It's an "unclean hands" scenario: if you're engaged in criminal behavior, you can't sue someone else over their conduct in the same action.)
- David Stein
Re:Uh Oh... (Score:3, Interesting)
That's true. But much more importantly, criminal prosecution has always been an extremely political decision. I really can't see the State of California filing suit against one of its major businesses for a fairly minor and technical criminal violation; the political cost would be too high. --Emphasis mine
I just want to point out that until it is judged by a court with the proper authority and jurisdiction, I am not so sure how someone is supposed to determine which crimes are minor and should be allowed to slip through the cracks.
You're honor, I only stole 1000 bucks from Bill Gates. He's a gabillionaire. It's all pretty minor, if you think about it. I mean, technically, I only stole 0.00001% of what he has. Can't we just round that off and call it 0?
Some days the slippery slope just keeps getting slipperier...
Re:Uh Oh... (Score:4, Interesting)
That's entrapment, of course.
Entrapment is only illegal when it's done by the police.
Re:Statutory damages!!!! =Profit! (Score:3, Interesting)