MPAA's Double Standard: It's Allowed To Copy Movies
from the fair-use-is-okay-for-those-in-power dept
This very well might be a publicity stunt, as the Motion Picture Association of America accuses, but even if that's the case there are some worthwhile points in the fact that the MPAA is now being accused of making unauthorized copies of a movie. The movie in question is the documentary "This Film Is Not Yet Rated," which has already received plenty of publicity for its look behind the scenes at the MPAA rating process. The MPAA's response (other than calling it a publicity stunt) suggests the double standard it holds. They seem to feel that, because they're the MPAA, different rules apply: "We made a copy of Kirby's movie because it had implications for our employees." Funny, but we don't think that excuse would work for anyone sued by the MPAA for copying a movie themselves. As the article points out, the MPAA's own website very clearly states: "Manufacturing, selling, distributing or making copies of motion pictures without the consent of the copyright owners is illegal... Movie pirates are thieves, plain and simple... ALL forms of piracy are illegal and carry serious legal consequences." Also, this is the same group that was allowed to go into schools and tell children "if you haven't paid for it, you've stolen it." What about fair use? Well, Jack Valenti, head of the MPAA for many years, used to famously say that fair use does not exist. Apparently, he meant for other people.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
American Dream by Zappa
Yes, yes,... but these guys (and they are almost all old fat guys) are rich, and so we should see them as the American ideal. Let's not be jealous of them, because although we work 40 hour weeks for enough to scrape by, they are clearly blessed by God himself with their wealth, and might makes right.
God save the MPAA bosses (and sub-bosses).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Well Isn't that Shocking!
The MPAA and RIAA will continue to abuse and alienate evryone as long as it means more C.R.E.A.M. for them. I find it interesting and disgusting that these monopolistic orgainizations continue to get away with pretending to be government sanctioned regulatory groups. They have all the qualities of the former and no real politician seems to object.
Armies of lawyers prove that Justice can be perverted by money, as they continue to try to instill fear upon the public. Someone there must realize that fear is an excellent method of control over the average John and Jane Doe.
Failing to react to changing technology, these groups simply serve to retain the assets of corporate fatcats, whom have already been found guilty in the past (remember the price-fixing class action lawsuit?)
I'd like to see someone in politics who is willing to take on these clear violations of anti-trust laws, including these groups, and also the re-emergence of the "Mah Bell" style communication companies, and of course, above all, the unmentionable corporate Giant that rules over the world of operating systems. (Hint: It starts with an M.)
When can we get our rights as consumers back, just like when they broke up the Bell monopoly?
Might as well plead the 5th in advance, fellow readers... someday you might want to make a copy of the Operating System that you bought for several hundred dollars and put it in a firesafe in case your house burns down, but for now, you don't have the right.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Well Isn't that Shocking!
People always want to say how bad we had it under AT&T, but their only valid complaint is in the category of long distance costs. Home and business phone service was cheap and reliable. Now it's costly and you will pay extra if they have to come in your house/business to troubleshoot.
And forget about the "myth" of the mobile phone replacing the land-line. Mobile service is still noisy and unreliable, even in huge mobile markets in metro areas. And guess what--it costs even more than your landline!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Well Isn't that Shocking!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Well Isn't that Shocking!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Could the MPAA be smarter than we think?
I think it might be possible the best case scenario for consumers is if the MPAA goes to court over this and WINS!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Could the MPAA be smarter than we think?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: American Dream by Zappa
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
HAIL!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: HAIL!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: HAIL!
"You can't make a copy as a general matter, but you can if you meet several tests," said Mark Lemley, a professor at Stanford Law School. It helps the MPAA, Lemley said, that it is not selling the copy of "This Film Is Not Yet Rated" for commercial gain.
Dick "is right to say you can't make a single copy unless you have a legitimate defense," Lemley said. "But it seems that in this case, [the MPAA] may have a legitimate defense."
-
I would think that you would have to have a court approval for something like this? It violates the law...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wrong..maybe?
to that than meets the eye. If I remember correctly, it was stated that the copy was made to use for a court battle. Also, I seem to recall that copying the movie is illegal if digital restrictions were circumvented, and if there is none, (which I wouldnt doubt for this movie that is not yet out), that fair use is in place, and bam, copy all you want (to a certian extent)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Wrong..maybe?
The only problem here is that then the MPAA has to explicitly acknowledge the fact that fair use exists.
Which also means that as long as the analog hole exists, fair use can never be removed.
To state it bluntly, its the absolute PINNACLE of hypocracy if they use fair use to defend their actions here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
not suprised
They only catch people who are stupid enough to get caught. I'm only 16 and there are kids that I know in my town and surrounding towns that have downloaded music and movies strait through napster to today. Anybody with half a brain and a mouse can find it all over the internet. The government should be working to make it harder to get to by shutting down these illigle websites and not going after the kid who wants to see "charlie and the chocolate factory".
Professor HighBrow is right on the money.
The MPAA even comes out and says that some of there information on there kids website: http://www.copyrightkids.org/ might not be right. Click on the "Legal Disclamer" down at the bottom.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]