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.
Does that mean that..... (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Does that mean that..... (Score:2, Funny)
Why not? They like Fucking everyone.
Re:Does that mean that..... (Score:5, Insightful)
Nah, they'll just sue the company they got to make copies for them. They'll call it a "mega piracy bust" or something, and say that they found 30 DVD replicators inside and some pirated goods... namely this one "This Film is Not Yet Rated" documentary.
Re:Does that mean that..... (Score:2, Redundant)
Re:Does that mean that..... (Score:3, Funny)
Must not sue self
Also related is Directive 2.i:
Must not sue any RIAA member or any third party of political influence and/or monetary support
Any attempts to violate these hard-wired directives will result in immediate self-destruction.
s/RIAA/MPAA (Score:2)
Not that they are particularly distinguishable, anyway...
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
Legal Proceedings (Score:5, Funny)
Uh Oh... (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re:Uh Oh... (Score:5, Insightful)
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
Statutory damages!!!! =Profit! (Score:5, Interesting)
It could be profitable :0
Re:Statutory damages!!!! =Profit! (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Uh Oh... (Score:5, Interesting)
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: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: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: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 allowe
Re:Uh Oh... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Uh Oh... (Score:5, Insightful)
I obviously don't know the background but when a guy makes an incidiary movie about the MPAA, makes specific requests of the MPAA, and pays attention to whether or not his instructions were followed it seems to be like he is trying to get a law suit.
I am torn between not liking the film maker for trying to find something to sue for and not liking the MPAA because they're cockroaches - I think I'll just settle on liking neither and hoping that the MPAA loses.
Re:Uh Oh... (Score:3, Insightful)
Does this logic allow all Republicans to pirate F9/11?
If the MPAA makes a specific request of movie buyers that they not pirate, and pays attention to whether these instructions were followed, aren't they "trying to get a lawsuit"? Your point is irrelevant (
Re:Uh Oh... (Score:3, Insightful)
Will you ever know for sure? Not until someone is caught. But the perfect digital copies of movies that come out before the film hits the theaters often come from advance DVD's sent to ratings boards and professional movie reviewers.
Yes I think the film maker is looking to stir something up, but that doesn't matter. The MPAA broke the same law they spend millions trying to enforce.
I could imagine a lawyer taking the case for the publicity also. M
Re:Uh Oh... (Score:4, Interesting)
That's entrapment, of course.
Entrapment is only illegal when it's done by the police.
Re:Uh Oh... (Score:2)
1. There is no mention that the movie was encypted in any fashion. It's possible, but I suspect unlikely.
2. The lawyer who is quoted states that the MPAA may have a justification that the MPAA was making a copy that they could use in evidence (presumably in a lawsuit against the director/author).
So, it might come down to what the MPAA actually did with those copies.
The article mentions that the email exchanges don't fully support the director's assertion that the MPAA agreed not to copy the movie, but th
Re:Uh Oh... (Score:2)
It's possible the big budget films might do more but considering this was a documentary and not big budget, I bet that it was done the way typical indy films are submitted.
Re:Uh Oh... (Score:4, Insightful)
The DMCA makes it illegal to break copyright protection mechanisms. If the movie was NOT protected, and it probably wasn't, then the DMCA does not come into play in any way.
The copyright infringment bit is still possible, but fair use does come into play there.
That's really the perversion of the DMCA - any copyright protection mechanism, pretty much regardless of how poorly implemented, trumps fair use rights.
Re:Uh Oh... (Score:4, Insightful)
Actually, that loophole was closed by the No Electronic Theft ("NET") Act [ucla.edu], not the DMCA.
Funnily enough, like the DMCA, the NET Act was also signed into law by the Clinton Administration. I only point that out to illustrate that selling out your rights to further rapacious corporate profits is not, and never has been, exclusively a Republican trait.
Schwab
Re:Uh Oh... (Score:3)
Jeesh, how much do I have to say that the frickin' Democrats are losers, too, before someone believes me ?
And yes, the Republicans taking less responsibility *would* be a travesty, since the main sponsor of the bill in question was a Republican. I'm not trolling, here...
Re:Uh Oh... (Score:2)
Nobody move or the monopoly gets it!
Financial gain? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Financial gain? (Score:5, Funny)
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
Re:Financial gain? (Score:5, Funny)
Didn't you get the memo? The movies on file sharing sites all have stegonographically encrypted bomb making instructions in them to give to the terrorists in Al Qaeda in exchange for the money which is used to buy the drugs which are given to the school children for posing in the child pornography which is stored on the computers of the innocent after they're broken into with the hacking tools that come with Linux. It should have all been explained in the Evil People's Ten Steps to Victory flier that came with your Debian installation. Didn't you get one?
Re:Financial gain? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Financial gain? (Score:2)
Perhaps the title should've been rephrased... (Score:5, Funny)
There
the sad part is the movie copied was......... (Score:2, Funny)
Re:the sad part is the movie copied was......... (Score:2)
Wrong... (Score:2)
intent!! (Score:4, Insightful)
so I can rip a few thousand copies of the latest sucky movie and as long as I don't gain financially, I can distribute at my discretion.
Statutory Damages (Score:4, Insightful)
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:intent!! (Score:2)
This will only happen if the content owner wants to keep pressing the point through a lawsuit. If he can't find a lawyer willing to take the case, or if he considers any settlement the MPAA might offer, it has little to no
Re:intent!! (Score:3, Insightful)
In the first case it may not even be worth going to trial (since they'll still have to pay the lawyer fees which may well be more than they could get), in the second it is much more likely to be worth it, on a 'normal' case.
(Standard disclaimer: IANAL, but I have studied this some. Got good grades too.)
Re:intent!! (Score:3, Insightful)
If the point to all of the *AAs' huffing and puffing is the financial gain of the people doing any sort of copying, and the MPAA can get away with making copies of this guy's movie, then we should all be able to breathe a sigh of relief, right?
(Well, in an ideal world, yes, but in our current bizarro-world where big corporations want to control every thought in your head and dollar in your pocket, no).
It also amuses me that they claim the copying was justified because their employees' privacy may hav
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...
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.
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?
Re:More info in the original unspun article (Score:3, Insightful)
But the bottom line is that the time and cost of taking the MPAA to court (probably multiple appeals) isn't worth it unless your pockets are VERY deep.
Think of it as photocopying a book and passing it around for all to read. Clear violation.
Re:More info in the original unspun article (Score:2)
If anything the latimes article contains more spin and excuse making from MPAA lawyers and reps than additional factual information.
Re:More info in the original unspun article (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:More info in the original unspun article (Score:5, Insightful)
That's funny, since Jack Valenti (President of the MPAA until 2004) has claimed repeatedly that there's no such thing as fair use. [darknet.com]
They were making copies of the work in its entirety and distributing it to employees because they thought they might be interested in it because the movie was about them. The only reason they had access to the material in the first place was because it was submitted to be rated, and they control the ratings process. IANAL, but I don't see how they'd squeeze a fair use defense out of this.
Remember, this is a movie that was being submitted for rating, so it hadn't been released yet. The MPAA has supported legislation that would have made this kind of copying a felony punishable by jail time. [slashdot.org]
I would love for this to go to trial and have the MPAA use a fair use defense. I want them on the record as saying distributing a small number of copies for purposes other than financial gain. I want an MPAA executive under oath stating what that number is. Hell, I just want them to submit to the court, in writing, a document that acknowledges the existence of the fair use exceptions.
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
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.
Double Standard (Score:2, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:3, Funny)
Director request No Copies. (Score:5, Funny)
Ahem, wouldn't that be considered a verbal contract? He submits the DVD and says "Do not copy, please." Or does he have to explicitly say, "DON'T FUCKING COPY THIS MOVIE YOU FUCKS!" and have them sign it for it to be a contract?
Signature __________________,
by MPAA FUCK
Morons (Score:2)
They then proceed to illegally copy it and hand it out to their employees. How stupid do you have to be?
Re:Morons (Score:2)
It's that they're so full of themselves, it just looks like stupidity.
Soko
Bah, that's nothing. (Score:5, Informative)
More info (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
Full translation of the Heise article (Score:3, Insightful)
GVU is reported to have sponsored piracy
Of all things, the Organization for Prosecuting Copyright Infringements (GVU) was targeted in the large search action against the piracy scene. The state attorney's office of Ellwangen suspects the private tracking organization of the film and software industry of having actively supported the distribution of what are called "warez". On Tuesday, investigators of the state Office of C
In Germany police raided the GVU, take server (Score:5, Informative)
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
There are four lights. (Score:2, Funny)
Consumers CAN'T Encrypt (Score:3, Informative)
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
Re:Difficult to see? (Score:3, Funny)
I'll save you the trouble and personally guarentee that it does not have graphic secual content.
MPAA Rating Response (Score:5, Funny)
What's this? (Score:5, Funny)
Hey, I make illegal copies too! Maybe they'd like to get together so we can trade. I wonder if they have Land of the Dead yet...
IANAL TINLA Revised (Score:2)
Did you mean:
Personally, I can't see any justification for an organization such as the MPAA ignoring a directive from a copyright owner, but I am a bit ANAL."
Anyway, I think that the MPAA should sue the RIAA, and vice-versa. This will tie them up in court for years and let everyone get back to the Prime Directive of copying every Ashley Simpson album known to e
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.
DMCA (Score:2, Informative)
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
Okay... (Score:5, Funny)
Good for you, but I don't see how your sexual leanings have anything to do with copyright violations.
Re:Okay... (Score:3, Funny)
Break out the Guillotine! (Score:2)
C'est la Vie sweetheart, now get into the guillotine!
geese and ganders (Score:2, Insightful)
Sounds a whole lot like pot, kettle and black. The copyright owner should sue their pants off.
Sweet, time to make buddies with Jack (Score:2)
Wait wait wait!!! (Score:4, Funny)
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...
So, that's okay then? Please, please, please...say that's ok. Just once. We won't hold you to it in the future. Honest!
I must be in the wrong line of work (Score:2)
Not for monetary gain??! (Score:2)
Intellectual Property Rights...are only for (Score:5, Insightful)
He who has the $$$ gets the rest of the $$$$$$$$$$
SONY, should have been hit with a fine or penalty for every instance of the ROOT kit installed. Were they? Nope...but they'll turn around and sue a 12 yr old.
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.
MPAA Piracy Reporting (Score:3, Funny)
In a perfect world... (Score:5, Funny)
Unfortunately, I do not believe this to be the case in our frame of reference.
Re:CSS? (Score:5, Insightful)
I unfortunately agree. The MPAA does have a case, considering the police were already called about potential stalking, and with this serving as evidence in that potential lawsuit, I can't help but agree this should be possible, to protect the innocent in this situation .
That said, I hope and pray that the author was smart enough to encode it with CSS, so we can actually have an example of using Fair Use policy to circumvent CSS encryption.
I'm tired of being told it is illegal to play DVDs on my linux-based laptop even though I own the DVD and have no DVD ripping libraries on my computer. Hopefully this publicity will force the MPAA to admit that there are cases that backup copies should be legal.
And to all the DVD ripping/sharing individuals, thanks for making it hard on the rest of us. Abuse of the system is what caused such strict policies and laws in the first place.
Re:CSS? (Score:5, Insightful)
Even if the police were called regarding stalking and even if there was evidence on the DVD that could be used as evidence, the correct thing (IANAL etc) would be for the police to seize the original DVD, NOT for the MPAA to arbitrarialy decide what could and could not be used as evidence in a potential criminal case.
Which raises another interesting question. Given that these were copies made without the agreement of the copyright holder, and without - presumably - proper forensic procedures having taken place; would they be admissible anyway? My guess would be "no" because you can't prove you've not tampered with them.
Re:CSS? (Score:2, Insightful)
They had no right to distribute it, IMO.
Re:CSS? (Score:2)
That is the nature of digital bits, they get copied. Deal with it. Copyright will go away, because instantly accessible information (~ Internet) is stronger.
Good luck trying to make bits not being able to be copied. The time will come when people pay for the _creation_ of information, and not for the ability to _copy_ that info
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: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:Not popular, but here's the truth (Score:5, Insightful)
What? No.
Show me the bit in the Copyright Act that says "If a copyrighted work mentions you, you get a free copy."
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.
Re:Not popular, but here's the truth (Score:5, Insightful)
Last time I checked, the MPAA were not a Law Enforcement agency.
They made copies of the movie and gave them to their employees. That's very different from handing over the evidence (the original DVD) to the Police, and then the Police making copies.
From what I have heard... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:What is IANAL (Score:3, Informative)