MPAA Helped Police Seize 'Pirated' DVDs That Were Actually Fully Authorized
from the expect-more-like-this dept
Here's a story that touches on a few different issues of importance around these parts. We'll get to the details of the legal ruling in a bit, but the background is really the key part. At the beginning of 2009, a company in Valencia, California, called L&M Optical Disc West, received an order from an authorized partner of the producers of the film Milk to manufacture the DVDs of the film. They began doing exactly that. On February 2nd, as part of a supposedly unrelated police raid, police saw those DVDs and found them "suspicious." They rang up the MPAA who sent over an "investigator," who falsely declared that the DVDs were unauthorized, leading the police to seize them (though, oddly, allowing the private investigation firm to hold them) and to declare to the press that they had found "pirated" DVDs of Milk. This happened despite multiple attempts by L&M staff to explain that they had a legitimate order, even offering to show the "investigator" the details of the order.The following day, L&M provided the police with all of the evidence that they were authorized to make those DVDs, and the police sergeant told L&M's owner that the DVDs could not be released because they were "pirated." From there, a bunch of press stories followed, with the police repeatedly telling the press that L&M was being investigated for such "piracy," even after the MPAA and the police realized that the DVDs were, in fact, authorized. Months later, however, the press was still quoting the police as saying that L&M was "under investigation" for "piracy."
Because of all of this, L&M claims that customers canceled jobs with L&M and past customers chose to find new partners. It also meant that other vendors who used to send "overflow" work to L&M no longer did so. It effectively dried up much of L&M's business.
If this all seems pretty horrifying, think of how much worse this kind of situation may be about to get. First off, just a few weeks ago, we noted that Governor Jerry Brown in California passed a law that would let law enforcement do more of these kinds of raids but they no longer need a warrant to do so. Yes, despite this massive failure on such a raid, the government now has even more authority to do these kinds of raids, and the MPAA can continue to get away with providing bogus information and effectively killing businesses.
Take it one step further: this is the reason why so many of us are so worried about the new E-PARASITE bill. The MPAA and other copyright holders have a dreadful history and reputation for being inaccurate when it comes to accusing others of infringement. Yet, under E-PARASITE, they get to kill sites dead, without any recourse, before anyone even looks to see if the copyright holder's claim is legit. Doesn't that seem the least bit problematic?
Now, as for the actual case at hand, for which you can read the full decision (pdf and embedded below), it involved the court tossing out a lawsuit by L&M against the MPAA over all of this, using California's anti-SLAPP laws. We're big fans of California's anti-SLAPP laws, and while we find the MPAA's conduct in this situation reprehensible, the ruling actually makes sense. The comments that were the most problematic to L&M in the newspaper reports were not, in fact, made by the MPAA but by the police. If anyone is responsible, it should be the police who made them.
L&M tries to place liability on the MPAA by claiming that the police and the MPAA had a "joint venture" going in these raids, but that isn't supported by the facts. This raid wasn't done at the request of the MPAA, and originally had nothing to do with copyright at all. So, we agree that blaming the MPAA for the comments in the press is improper, as it's misapplied third party liability. Of course, there does seem to be a bit of irony in the fact that the MPAA appears to be working overtime to increase third party liability by undermining the kinds of safe harbors that protect a party from being blamed for the speech of others. However, it's no surprise at all that the MPAA is -- yet again -- too clueless to recognize how its actions undermine its own legal protections elsewhere.
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
Filed Under: 1st amendment, 4th amendment, anti-slapp, defamation, dvds, e-parasite, infringement
Companies: l&m optical disc west, mpaa
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Courts? What are those?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
But you see, it's interesting. SOPA tramples with the very 3rd-party liability laws that saved MAFIAA in this case. I say fine irony we got here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Also I would hope that many hacking/defacing of websites go on every day by millions of folk.Completely bring down their websites.Sit in the main streets of Washington with millions and force it to stop to a standstill.
Take away our freedom and it will not be long till violence starts happening.No one in this country wants to live in a place like Russia.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
@AC #1: Yot, that's exactly a technique that monopolies use.
The solution here is strong anti-trust that prevents corporations from getting too large, period. You /cannot/ trust corporations to ANY degree, but can ensure enough around to attack each other, and that they're not in cahoots. -- Yes, that includes the MPAA needs to be taken down QUITE a bit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: @AC #1: Yot, that's exactly a technique that monopolies use.
The MPAA is, in this case, an independent party (unrelated to the potential framing) that made a mistake (common for them). A mistake that was resolved with further investigation by the police. With the e-parasite law, further investigation isn't required. Initial investigation isn't required. Once they were accused, that's it.
So the MPAA, or whatever, claims something is in violation, files the proper paperwork, and ends it. The company is blackballed, can't make money, and has no clear (if any) recourse.
I agree with you on the anti-trust part, but that's not going to fix the overwhelming problems that we have today. The trusts have created too many problems, we need to fix those as well as go trust busting.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: @AC #1: Yot, that's exactly a technique that monopolies use.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Take the safe route and assume he's a moron. Nobody who claims such a thing knows what the hell they're talking about.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I can see it now, the momentous signing of the MPAA are Parasites law, the tv/movie industry begins a crashing decline,replaced by technologically superior video games and indie video. Its a matter of time really. The price of tickets are going up and the attendance is going down. Less attendance means less pop culture impact, which feeds into this looming irrelevancy that the MPAA is attempting to hasten.
Just like CD's gave way to MP3's, DVD's to streaming, Movie/TV will give way to video games and indie.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
*takes my money and spends it where it's deserved*
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Forgive me if this is off-topic, but it amuses me to parallel this to a school scenario:
"Why didn't you do your homework, Perkins?"
"'Cause you might send the cops after me, Sir..."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Why is the MPAA not at fault?
Whoever said that was wrong. They should bear some culpability for wrongly accusing L&M of piracy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Someone already *did* pay - L&M.
Just like you said, their business was decimated - so they are paying.
Logically, you would want to know who is to blame so that the responsible party can pay... but if blame is irrelevant and yet "someone" must pay, then it really doesn't matter who that "someone" is.
Unless you'd like to correct your first sentence?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
> business decimated through no fault of their own.
Sounds like they lost a helluva lot more than 10% of their business. They were a lot more than just decimated.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
While your thinking they should be screwed out of business over this, I'd like you to remember to close all the farms, meat packers, and lawn services. Oh and arrest some Congressmen and others because they have hired illegals as well.
There is not a magic tattoo on someones forehead that when exposed to a special light says they are legal. They took the information and submitted it like they are supposed to, they run a business why is immigration status checking their job... don't we pay taxes for that sort of thing?
And while your happy L&M is gone why is Hormell or any of the other major plants where they have conducted these sweeps out of business? They often go out of their way to hire illegals so they can pay less, but they are still in business.
If your all for the law make sure you apply it evenly.
kthks
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
> brown to boil your point down.
Please don't start with that bullshit.
The idea that we have to stop enforcing a law once the majority of its violators are other than white is beyond idiotic.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
> forehead that when exposed to a special
> light says they are legal
No, but there is a cheap non-magical way for employers to check every new hire's legal status, but our lovely California governor just vetoed a bill that would require its use.
He claimed he did it because he didn't want to 'overburden businesses in California', yet E-Verify pales in comparison to all the *other* regulatory burdens that California puts on businesses in the state. California is the most regulated business environment in the state, but requiring E-Verify was a bridge too far for Jerry Brown?
Who actually buys the crap that this guy is shoveling? He vetoed it as a sop to all the Latino voters, those who vote legally and illegally, that he needs to keep his power base. He basically sent a message that he has no interest in doing anything to stop the relentless flow of illegals into California.
> they run a business why is immigration
> status checking their job
The same reason it's their job to comply with every other local, state, and federal law.
"Those meat-packers run a business. Why is complying with FDA health standards their job?"
Please...
> They often go out of their way to hire illegals
> so they can pay less, but they are still in
> business.
The management of such companies should be in prison.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
on the positive side
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The investigator and the police need to be targeted in this suit. The Police have made false statements about the piracy they claimed was happening. They handed evidence in the case to a 3rd party who is NOT part of their department, so the only possible outcome there would have been mistrial because they bungled handling the evidence.
While the MPAA are idiots and several other choice words, they did not directly act in this situation. With any luck the lawsuit against the police would have a twofold benefit, it would clear their name (but I am guessing they are just screwed now) and it would make the police very shy of dealing with the MPAA or its investigators in the future as they are not professionals or trustworthy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
RE "you're a witch"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: RE "you're a witch"
Nope, definitely no similarity here. /sarc
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Just shows..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
More lies FUDboy? You know full well that a site that receives an infringement claim can file a counterclaim and that automatically bounces the matter to a federal judge. You're entitled to your own opinion Masnick, but not your own facts. On the other hand, your deliberate lies make for great examples to illustrate the depths to which the opponents will sink to be able to continue to steal content.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Meanwhile, the defendant also has to deal with Visa, Mastercard, and other businesses pulling away while the details are sorted out. All because of an accusation of infringement that might be baseless.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
(read that in a turretgun's voice from Portal)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"You're entitled to your own opinion Masnick, but not your own facts."
It's amazing how many of the "attacks" you make are equally applicable to yourself...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
They can file a counterclaim, but the ad providers and payment processors have EVERY incentive to just cut the site off, and have NO requirement to EVER turn them back on.
We've already seen this. Under the DMCA, recipients of takedowns don't HAVE to takedown the content, but they almost universally do, just to avoid any liability. Guess what happens under SOPA? They'll cut off these sites. Especially if they receive more than one notification? Even if legit, why take on that liability?
The problem with you folks who wrote the bill is you have no real world experience. You have no clue how this industry works, and you seek to break it. You seek to turn the internet into TV, because that's all you know.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Salem Witch Trials in the modern day.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Kill em all
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A mistake was obviously made here...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
IBM falsely accused me of Piracy
A random note about the laptop...it was a 486SLC2-50, with 4MB of RAM that I upgraded to 12MB, and a 2.5" IDE hard disk...maybe a 70MB, 120MB, or 170MB...I forget. That little thing's screen was dim under fluorescent lights, but it let me hack code for years. It managed battery ejection through software, so it could hang up an a white screen and refuse to let me eject the battery. I'd have to let it run for a day or so until it ran down totally, then recharge it to eject the battery. If I started recharging it too soon, it would still be hung and would not eject the battery.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"The comments that were the most problematic to L&M in the newspaper reports were not, in fact, made by the MPAA but by the police. If anyone is responsible, it should be the police who made them."
So, the police made comments BASED on what the MPAA told them, but the MPAA is not responsible?
Try to make a little sense - this doesn't.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
this stinks
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]