What is Digg?80 Comments
- JackDoyle, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7"The courts recognize that parties are entitled to make a copy of a work for use as evidence in possible future proceedings,"
I think it's great that the MPAA acknowledges this. Now I have no problems copying movies. I'm simply hanging on to copies of them on the off chance that one day I might have to file a lawsuit against the producer of the movie. - Abx0r, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Ok, so it's ok to copy if it isn't for monetary gain. Yay, then I'm gonna go on a piracy spree. Thanks MPAA.
- acomj, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Its not Piracy unless you distribute it. This is called "Fair Use"
- iSEPIC, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Hopefully this will goto court and be won. I mean, if I said "well sir, I copied the dvd I'm being busted for, because well, I thought I'd be busted for it, and have need a defense" I'll get off right? lol, no not the little guy.... f'n bastards.
- Moocat, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I also reserve a patent/copyright/trademark on the use of the word CAUGHTY. That is all.
- Moocat, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I reserve the right to hereby copy any movie I want to make sure they aren't using my name illegally or any family members names or actions without my approval.
You know...on the off chance they caughty a half a second glimpse of my face in a movie without my permission. - alphager, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2The funny thing is:
The GVU in Germany (basicaly the german MPAA) was raided today.
They are accused of sponsoring a warez-server.
see heise.de for details - kspore, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I think the current law says yes you can make a copy of a movie for your personal use, but if it is digitally protected you can not. Hence the reason you can rip your CDs for your iPod, but not your movies for your iPod. I am assuming the copy Dick sent to the MPAA was unprotected so the DMCA doesn't apply and a copy could be made. I don't know if legally speaking Dick can request them to give up their legal right to make a copy for non-commercial use. The whole damn thing is just strange if you ask me.
- taraba, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2From article: "She said the MPAA's copy of "This Film Is Not Yet Rated" is "locked away," and is not being copied or distributed."
So, then that's legal for everyone else to do, right? I can make a copy of the movie I borrow from a friend as long as I keep it "locked away" and don't copy or distribute it? - phpkerouac, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2"("This Film Is Not Yet Rated" was rated NC-17 for "some graphic sexual content," a rating upheld after Dick appealed.) "
hehehe - they said appealed. - oepapel, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2They should pay an outrageous fine to this guy. Then they can turn around and say "nobody is above the pirating laws! not even us!" At least that way they would still have their credibility. But since that is never going to happen, they just look like fools with absolutist ideals and a big legal stick.
- Flagg3, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2FYI, "Fair Use" doesn't apply in this situation, because "Fair Use" gives you the right to make a personal copy of something that you already own.
They never owned a copy of the movie, he simply sent them a copy that was supposed to be returned. For them to copy it is akin to you copying a movie that you rent from Blockbuster, which is not legal under "Fair Use".
Their argument that they had a right to make a copy for possible legal action is pretty weak. Most likely, they have no intention of filing any lawsuit, and if they have no good faith belief that they will ever really file a lawsuit, then that is no defense. Otherwise, the have no more legal basis to make a copy than anyone of us who copies Harry Potter 'just in case' we decide we might ever want to sue.
And the fact is that they admitted that they have copied other movies in the past. I find it hard to believe that all of those copies were made in anticipation of a lawsuit. Personally, I don't think that it's a big deal that they copied the movies, but it's hypocritical for them to come down hard on others who do the same thing. You can't have it both ways.
Flagg - Duston, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Even sounds like a good movie too.
- tidejwe, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1They aren't stupid (unfortunately). It's similar to collecting evidence for a lawsuit. They could easily claim that they needed a copy for the courts to get retraining orders, or to sue him for trespassing and stalking. The copy was made for lawsuit purposes only. Plus, they are not distributing it, nor was this film made to be sold for a profit, so the author can't claim he is losing any money off the copy like they do, so he can't really sue them for any money. Basically, they win and there are several excuses they could use to not get in trouble. Don't get me wrong, I hate them as much as the next guy. . . but it could easily be argued that they didn't do anything wrong. For instance, if you want your film to get a rating by them, part of the automatic agreement (signed or not like TV and cell phone companies) may be that they can make and keep a copy in reserve with a promise to not distribute it, etc and it could be written into the privacy agreement. This guy was never promised copies wouldn't be made, they dodged his request and simply promised that his privacy was a high priority, not that they wouldn't make copies, and he said ok and gave it to them. There is a HUGE difference. They can keep his privacy by securing the movie so only lawyers and raters have access to it, thereby making everything legal. HE wanted a rating from them, they set the terms, and he agreed. He doesn't have a foot to stand on legally...there are way to many ways around this.
- Pentarix, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Its not Piracy unless you distribute it. This is called "Fair Use"
- Oh really? So you're saying it's ok for the MPAA to do it because it's "Fair Use", but if you did it, do you know what they'd do to you? Try using that one against the MPAA or RIAA in court. - Schmitty, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1You don't fight the MPAA and the RIAA at the same time. You get them to fight each other....
- dextroz, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1hope this brings the greedy stinkin bastards down :-(
- wookiekiller, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Hahahahahahahahaha! Losers! lmao!
- dirtyfratboy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1ahahahah
Caveat venditor!!!!!!!!!! - MrPhelps, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Try this kind of trick as an individual and you're certain to be convicted of "insult to the court" (or whatever this is called in the US system) for thinking the judge is stupid. As a big company though this become a completely sensible defense.
- IraqManiac, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I might actually have to watch this movie now
- chrism1128, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1So can I sue the MPAA?
For sucking? - fishbert, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1MPPA = Motion Picture Piracy Association?
- KarateMedia, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2acomj: "Its not Piracy unless you distribute it. This is called "Fair Use""
Actually, that is absolutely not true. Distribution is the best way to get caught, but technically even making a home copy of a movie you own can be illegal. It's called the DMCA.
And "Fair Use" is not a set-in-stone ting. It's an abstract and changing concept -- and at best, it's only a defense in court, after you've already been sued and had to hire a lawyer.
See: "After all, many legal scholars, politicians, copyright owners and users and their lawyers agree that fair use is so hard to understand that it fails to provide effective guidance for the use of others' works today." From: http://www.utsystem.edu/OGC/IntellectualProperty/copypol2.htm
and see: "If this definition seems ambiguous or vague, be aware that millions of dollars in legal fees have been spent attempting to define what qualifies as a fair use. There are no hard-and-fast rules, only general rules and varying court decisions." From: http://fairuse.stanford.edu/Copyright_and_Fair_Use_Overview/chapter9/9-a.html - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1So...the MPAA still has Fair use laws in their favor while I who has no intention of redistributing things can not use them? Seems like a double standard to me.
- acomj, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1>>Its not Piracy unless you distribute it. This is called "Fair Use"
>- Oh really? So you're saying it's ok for the MPAA to do it because it's "Fair Use", but if you did it, >do you know what they'd do to you? Try using that one against the MPAA or RIAA in court.
The ironic thing is, The MPAA/RIAA is not at all going after single copy"cd/cassette" sharing, like the guy who made this movie is. They generally go after those that feel the need to "share" or "republish" to the 1000s of friends they've never met, or folks who are making bootleg copies and selling them. So this guy is being worse than the organizations he's trying to discredit, trying to prevent limited fair use copying. He is an ass.
This should cement the fact you can can make copies of stuff you own for personal use. Period. No jury would convict - orangetiki, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1yeah, but who's the MPPA?
- Flipperbw, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@ Cowboy:
Both. Precedents can be used in both cases, but are usually brought up in criminal.
Anyway, I HATE double standards. There are two possibilities: either it is legal to copy movies so long as you don't sell them, or the MPAA is guilty.
Either one, and I'm happy. Win-win baby, win-win. - tempest, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I think we should all join together and report them for pirating at the following URL:
http://www.mpaa.org/ReportPiracy.asp - EvilBadger, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1If they lose then they are shown to be guilty of piracy. If they win then we can use the same excuse in court against them. its a win win for us. Bwahahahaha LOSERS.
- deathpasser, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I love the hypocrisy here:
"The courts recognize that parties are entitled to make a copy of a work for use as evidence in possible future proceedings" from the article, this is what they would use for their defence. However:
"Manufacturing, selling, distributing or trading movies or televisions programs without the consent of copyright holders is illegal." Front page of mpaa.org, left hand lower cornerish
Digg+ - suppazone, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0this is too funny - Man they are screwed
- M2Ys4U, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0pwnt.
- clevershark, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Let's see Jack Valenti's decrepit bony ass in federal pound-me-in-the-ass prison now!
- kursplat, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Oops.... small spelling mistake:
""Dick-orchestrated 'pubicity stunt'""
:) - mawdawgie, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Interesting.
- TKDWILSON, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"""""Its not Piracy unless you distribute it. This is called "Fair Use""""""
Uhhhhh, no. Not that I don't pirate, just that this statement is stupid.
Eric Wilson - Dingc, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Doesn't this mean that all MPAA employees commit Seppuku?
- mrASSMAN, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0i dont like the mpaa.. but this is just stupid. they didnt do anything wrong. they made a copy probably to use in a court against dick because he was stalking employees. sounds reasonable enough to me.
- MalDON, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0***** hypocrites
- ezkiel, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Quote of the day: "Dick-orchestrated 'publicity stunt'"
- compu73rg33k, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0What a bunch of fags. I hope they get sued for an astronomical amount. Then I hope the judge doubles the amount. ***** hypocritical bastards. BUT we didn't DISTRIBUTE it! ... Yeah neither did that guy who didn't even download the ***** file you idiots.
- Abx0r, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Thank you for reporting piracy.
Every effort will be made to follow through on your report. Thank you for supporting the MPAA. - Namco, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0""We were concerned about the raters and their families," Bernards said. She said the MPAA's copy of "This Film Is Not Yet Rated" is "locked away," and is not being copied or distributed."
YAY, all my pirated movies are "locked away" too! Must make it right :) - ezkiel, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I hope the MPAA win and set an awesome precedent in court!!!
- slackerhobo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Idiots ...you would think they would be smart enough not to do what they are charging others with doing
- jeremymerrill, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0lol Karma!!
- Cowboy5995, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I'll take what is ironic for 500 Alex.
"We made a copy of Kirby's movie because it had implications for our employees," said Kori Bernards, the MPAA's vice president for corporate communications."
Straight from the horses mouth. I got to go download some movies some movies to make sure some of my ideas wernt taken. Uhh yeah that's it. Those darn movie producers follow me and take my ideas.
Can legal precedents be set from civil cases? Or only criminal? - ehmjay, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0serves them right those jerks. i hope they get SCEE-REWED! I also wanna find this movie! sounds AWSOME!
- p1nhead, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Looks like the MPAA will have to sue itself now.
-
Show 51 - 80 of 80 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is