MPAA Violates Another Software License 297
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.
Re:How hard is it to check the license? (Score:5, Interesting)
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:Well, not anymore... (Score:2, Interesting)
Note, at present exchange rate, the permision to remove the links is $97.
Oh, the sweet paradox for Slashdot. (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:Done (Score:1, Interesting)
Apply MPAA logic (Score:3, Interesting)
I submit that a software author is the same as a music CD author on an artistic level, perhaps more so since he does not have all the studio people to massage his work into something palatable.
If this artist is left on his own, he could make some cash in small claims court, or at least his 150 pound license fee [hostforest.co.uk] if he is not the litigous sort perhaps.
However I think this is also a very good opportunity for a big guns lawyers supplied perhaps by the EFF to find the paper where the MPAA writes down its killer legal strategies, and tear it up into tiny pieces, much as IBM is doing to SCO.
Equate software to music. Equate running softare or viewing a webpage as a "performance" in the legal sense. Use MPAA rules. Since the license costs about $100, calculate based on a 300% markup over a $35 average MPAA cd price. The sum will be punitive damages for theft, plus the 300% of what the MPAA sues for a song, plus the price of a "performance" multiplied by the number of visits to any of the blog's pages, based on the evidence of the MPAA's server logs which is must produce in court. Although this sounds over the top, it is simply using the same non-common-sensical strategy the MPAA is using in court, and I think a judge and jury might just see justice in that, or at least a reason not to throw the case out.
I think this ought to net a nice award for the author.
When you think about it, SCO has lasted this long because it is like a pathogen that bends the organism that is the legal system to its intent, far beyond the realm of common sense: If they don't show the infringing code it is common sense that they ought not be able to argue beyond that. The MPAA also also exhibits pathogenic qualities; it sues its own customers for such outrageous sums that it is not only beyond common sense, you have to wonder if their worth is based more on legal games than actually what their members sell. Unless we take advantage of such amazing incidents as this one and use their own weapons against them, it will just continue. We now have a chance to stir up some talk about whether the MPAA is also over the top, and what to do about it.
Re:Maybe they should be investigated som more (Score:5, Interesting)
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? (Score:3, Interesting)
I was ready to flame but have ultimately decided that its the same thing. Culture sees it as a minor violation because the current legal definition of copyright is unenforcable. Its a minor problem precisely because going after every violater leads to two conclusions: its rights granted by current copyright law are too strong, and most people know somebody that should be locked up for violating it.
Its pretty much the same thing. My original post was more about saying that if, as an individual, you don't violate it, you might as well suggest that it'd be okay if wearing green coloured shirts were illegal because you don't own any green shirts. The fact is that peopel violate copyright law all the time, and if we had some magical transporter that put all these folks into jail right this minute, society would cease to function.
Re:Well, not anymore... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:How hard is it to check the license? (Score:4, Interesting)
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 (Score:4, Interesting)
http://www.variety.com/article/VR1117931921.html?
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... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Maybe they should be investigated som more (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Well, not anymore... (Score:3, Interesting)
I smell something, and for one it isn't MAFIAA. Free advertising for ForrestBlog anyone!?
Re:DMCA (Score:3, Interesting)
Here's a handy link so you can let us all know : http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c105:H.R.22
Its sorta legit.... (Score:5, Interesting)
short of it is:
MPAA Response:
Re:How hard is it to check the license? (Score:2, Interesting)
lol (Score:2, Interesting)
Comment removed (Score:4, Interesting)
It was found, how? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:New Defense Offered (Score:3, Interesting)
Some of these are kinda weak, but you get the point. Music audience is you, software audience is NOT MPAA.
-Em
Re:How hard is it to check the license? (Score:2, Interesting)
Me.
I don't have much money. I'm poor. I'm also a student with a fair amount (probably around $30,000 USD) in student loans i'll be paying back for a fair while.
I don't waste my money on something that I'll probably only listen to a few times. I occasionally buy dvd's, usually out of the bargain bucket in Tescos, since my taste in film is for good films, not the mass-market drivel pumped out nowadays.
I don't buy music. Waste of money. In the past I have downloaded a fair amount. If, due to legalities or actualities I was no longer able to do so, I'd go without. I can live without others thoughts on the world; I have my own thoughts, impressions and music to fill the void if I have to. I have on a few occasions download music from iTunes, usually something that particularly moved me or inspired me. I didn't mind paying for this, given the price was minimal (about what I think reasonable to cover their overheads and bandwidth) and it didn't waste any more resources. CD's cost a huge amount in resources, oil for the plastics, various other chemicals for the binder etc, energy to create and process these raw materials etc., distribution and packaging costs. All for a hunk of data I can copy from a server safe in the knowledge that apart from the energy needed for the transfer, I've not contributed to the rape of the planet, since the server was already there, and even if it wasn't, one server can serve billions of songs in it's life.
I judge that as being morally and ethically superior to buying CD's in a shop and supporting these nazis in their quest for more money.
Since they've admitted to having done it (Score:5, Interesting)
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 (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
A small step (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:True, but not exactly true - follow up needed (Score:4, Interesting)
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).