The latest news is always here. Become a member and join the discussions, add our RSS feed or submit your own story and see it read by thousands of people.
The Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) is the most notorious for fighting movie piracy and even their website makes it clear that making copies of motion pictures without the copyright owner's consent is illegal and carries serious legal consequences. Well, with all its efforts in trying to shut down file sharing hubs that help distribute movies, lock down equipment and storage media with anti-piracy measures and even trying to re-enforce the infamous broadcast flag, the last thing anyone would expect is for the MPAA to be accused of piracy!
Well, apparently this is the case as the MPAA is being accused of unlawfully making a bootleg copy of a documentary without the filmmaker's permission. The director Kirby Dick sent in his movie "This Film Is Not Yet Rated" for the MPAA to rate it and clearly asked in his e-mail for assurance that no copies of the whole or any part of his movie will be made. However, the MPAA had made a copy for Dan Glickman, the MPAA's new president to view. As a result, Dick mentioned that he is very upset and troubled about the discovery of this practice.
On the other hand, the MPAA claims that it did not break copyright law and claims that Dick's dispute is deliberately aiming to help 'advertise' his movie with the all the publicity this 'stunt' can lead to. They also say that they are entitled to make a copy without authorisation as they are not selling its copies for commercial gain. So far, a lawyer representing Dick has written to the MPAA demanding it to immediately return all copies of the film as well as explain who approved the making of the copy and all those who watched the copy. So far while the layer has no plans yet to sue the MPAA for copyright infringement, this may be possible later. Thanks to miffy, RTV71 and kamikazee who all used our news submit to let us know about this news:
Michael Donaldson, a lawyer representing Dick, has written the MPAA demanding that it "immediately return all copies" of the film in its possession, and explain who approved the making of the copy and who within the MPAA has looked at the reproduction.
Dick said he was "very upset and troubled" to discover during a recent conversation with an MPAA lawyer that the MPAA had copied the film from a digital version he submitted Nov. 29 for a rating. ("This Film Is Not Yet Rated" was rated NC-17 for "some graphic sexual content," a rating upheld after Dick appealed.) The MPAA's copy of Dick's film was viewed by Dan Glickman, the MPAA's new president, the MPAA said.
The filmmaker said that when he asked MPAA lawyer Greg Goeckner what right his organization had to make the copy, Goeckner told him that Dick and his crew had potentially invaded the privacy of the MPAA's movie raters.
As the MPAA helped shut down many organisations that
assisted with DVD copying such as software manufacturers of both copying and file sharing software as well as certain hardware makers that got around DVD's copy protection restrictions, it is about time they got the feel of what it is like to be accused of piracy. It is also interesting to see how they mention that they were not selling its copies. Well, apparently a lot of those they sued never sold or profited in any way from copying copyrighted movies.
Discuss this article with your fellow community members! We appreciate your valuable input, but please keep the reaction policy in mind and make sure your reaction is constructive.
GOTCHA!
" They also say that they are entitled to make a copy without authorisation as they are not selling its copies for commercial gain."
That has to be quote of the year!
After that statement surely they must HAVE to prove people have made money before they can sue them.
Piracy is a crime,but making copies to watch with no commercial gain must be legal.
I so hope this guys lawyers pursue this so we can either watch copies as long as no profit is made,or to see the MPAA get sued for what it is fighting.
Double standards of what.
Just to be on the correct side, no where in the article does it say
"That they are entitled to make a copy without authorization as they are not selling its copies for commercial gain".
The author of this post here took things out of context. The original article says that "It helps that MPAA is not copying the movie for commercial gain" and refers to their legal standing.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not a fan of MPAA, but we should keep things straight in here.
Perhaps the MPAA's efforts to "educate" the public have been misguided. It never hurts to wash your own dirty underpants before parading around public like a saint. Using the traditional MPAA logic, it is impossible that this could have been a mistake. Sue the bastards!!! *roars
reading it in context does not change anything. They made a copy without concent. they broke the law. Sue them there should be a class-action suite against them. If the MPAA can copy something for their own private use, then so can I. I, once again, have the right to copy anything I own for my personal use. MPAA has just removed any excuse for copy protection.
i think reading into context does change things. everyone here always speaks on how MPAA and RIAA is biased in their articles, and yet we chose to alter things to make our point here... if you wanna cry foul, play a fair game... a game with some really stupid rules, but still...
"If you wanna cry foul, play a fair game"
Exactly why context does not matter in this case. The MPAA is trying to say that they can do something illegal, but I can't, by stating that is was for non-comercial use after the copy was made against the statement of the copyright holder. But it is okay because they are the MPAA. According to them all copies are illegal, even the "fair use" copies.
what wrong with us downloading movies then if its not for commercial gain, yet we get sued for that.
i really hope the mpaa gets sued, will be great for their image ))
This is a single case (there may be others) but lets not launch the lynch mob just yet. If they read this stuff and im sure they do they are still laughing all the way to the bank. Kind of like a protest march with signs, they might look out the window but only because they are more worried about somebody messing up the lawn. This will fall on deaf ears as usual but stop buying their products until things change. They can't hold out forever. Every time somebody says this it's like talking to a rock next to the road. Hey do what you want and ill continue to do what I want to. But there ain't no DRM here where im sitting
Well you're absolutly right "this is a single case".
But it's funny and kind of proves what we've been thinking for a long time. I like it :-)
But we've been beating around the bush... this is, to put it in a nutshell, a perfect example for an act of hyporisy or "double standard". This is always the case in our society when it's David vs. Goliath.
Think of it as the tip of the iceberg. And yes they are lauphing.... sadly we can only do little.
It's a vicious circle of our money making them stronger so they can use it against us.
my two cents
One thing that everyone's missing is that there was probably no DRM encoding on the DVD given to the MPAA to review. Therefore, they cannot be accused of breaking the DMCA law. This is why the MPAA has taken out 321 Studios and others, their software broke the DMCA law by removing DRM protections.
NOT saying I agree with the MPAA ( ), but in all fairness, they probably did a simple copy and did not have to bypass CSS to do it. The fact that the filmmaker requested in writing that the MPAA make no copies without asking permission first, however, violates the owner's copyright and is entirely punishable, IMHO.
"The director Kirby Dick sent in his movie "This Film Is Not Yet Rated" for the MPAA to rate it"
In this case it's the sender who is the bad guy. Large Companies have internal polices, Procedures, etc. One disc of a work asking to be rated you would have to be a fool to think one disc could traverse the thousands of miles of Hollywood office space. There are three cold hard facts here. 1 - The sender is not going to collect a dime because he asked for rating and attached some unreasonable request with it. 2 - His chances of getting a good rating just went down the tubes (they don't need this BS) 3 - He just made it harder for anybody else to submit a work. Im not on anybody's side here but the facts speak for them self's.
stop dreaming you lot
nothing will happen to this organisation
havent you heard of the
"untouchables" well these are the modern version
they make the rules as they go along
> the MPAA claims that it did not break copyright law
And cops speeding in the HOV lane aren't breaking the law either. Those who write and enforce the laws are obviously above it.
Dunno about lawsuit, but the MPAA should be beaten about the head and shoulder, and have their office copy of 321Copy deleted.
Using the traditional MPAA logic, it is impossible that this could have been a mistake.
LOL !!!! 
))
This is a single case (there may be others) but lets not launch the lynch mob just yet. If they read this stuff and im sure they do they are still laughing all the way to the bank. Kind of like a protest march with signs, they might look out the window but only because they are more worried about somebody messing up the lawn. This will fall on deaf ears as usual but stop buying their products until things change. They can't hold out forever. Every time somebody says this it's like talking to a rock next to the road. Hey do what you want and ill continue to do what I want to. But there ain't no DRM here where im sitting
), but in all fairness, they probably did a simple copy and did not have to bypass CSS to do it. The fact that the filmmaker requested in writing that the MPAA make no copies without asking permission first, however, violates the owner's copyright and is entirely punishable, IMHO.
Happy Birthday to you alias_neo 
r_saotome thank you for your reaction in the news section. 
deanimator just logged in, Good to see you back!