Motion Picture Ass. of America makes ass of itself

This is just too funny.......How's that old saying goes...people who live in glass houses.....hhhmmm.

Quote:

---

If it's your job to stop people pirating movies, you should really be very careful not to get caught making pirate copies.

But that's what the Motion Picture Ass. of America has managed to do. The MPAA lobbies for stronger action against pesky pirates and more effective digital rights management. This week it admitted copying a movie, but effectively claimed it was above copyright law.

The MPAA also runs the US rating system. It views films and allocates ratings according to content - G for general audiences, PG for parental guidance.

That was how it got its hands on a copy of "This Film Is Not Yet Rated" - a documentary about how the MPAA rates films. The director, Kirby Dick, specifically asked the MPAA not to make any copies of his film. Dick was assured by an MPAA representative that "the confidentiality of your film... is our first priority. Please feel assure [sic] that your film is in good hands".

But on Monday the MPAA admitted it had made a copy of the film but claimed, because their staff were the subject of the film, they were not breaking copyright law.

An MPAA spokeswoman said: "We made a copy of Kirby's movie because it had implications for our employees. We were concerned about the raters and their families," the LA Times reported.

She added that the film was "locked away" and no further copies were being made - good to know they're not flogging them down the market then.

More from the LA Times here. ®

---

The Register

I only copied all of my kung-fu movies becaues they had implications of kung-fu, does that mean i can keep 'em??? YAY!

While the MPAA may get off on a technicality because they never explicitly stated, "Your film will not be duplicated", it most definately was implicitly understood that it wasn't to be. People have been convicted under worse crimes for less. If they felt there were legal concerns about the movie, they should have introduced legal action or at least had a mediation with the owner over it. A copy was illegally (or at least very unethically) made. I hope they get hounded over it.

Evil Moo: If you read the article again you will find that the Director did tell them to not make any copies of it

Quote:

---

[gloworange]The director[/gloworange] , Kirby Dick, [gloworange]specifically asked the MPAA not to make any copies of his film[/gloworange] . Dick was assured by an MPAA representative that "the confidentiality of your film... is our first priority. Please feel assure [sic] that your film is in good hands".

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted here by JewishIntent
Evil Moo: If you read the article again you will find that the Director did tell them to not make any copies of it

---

No no, that's the technicallity. They said they would protect the "confidentiality of your film". Since nobody outside of the MPAA whom were authorized to view the film had seen or possessed it, no actually intellectual property was truely compromised. Thus, it's confidentiality has been maintained and their word kept true. However by copying it without consent was infact a violation of their own policy.

So basically even though he asked them not to since they didn't say they wouldn't to him, and it was only kept 'in house' they get away with it. . . . i love our legal system.

Well, well, well..... According to the Utah courts government web site: http://www.utcourts.gov/resources/glossary.htm

The following definition should apply:

Quote:

---

contract - An oral or written agreement between two or more parties which is enforceable by law.

---

Normally a verbal agreement is non-binding in a courtroom if there is a disagreement on whether a verbal contract ever existed. However, if one can prove, either by the defendant's actions or by the defendant's own admission, that a verbal agreement did in fact exist; then the verbal contract can be considered to be legally binding. Basically the MPAA hs already admitted to illegally copying the movie by both action and public statement. I think the MPAA is in big trouble here. Does anyone else smell a lawsuit?

Also to be considered - Was the movie copyrighted prior to handing the film over to the MPAA? Hehehehehe! :D

There's not going to be a lawsuit - if there would be, Dick's case would be laughed away by any court. Donaldson claims the MPAA promised they wouldn't copy the movie (if that would be true, he would have a small case), but apparently that's not true at all. Furthermore, the MPAA did have the right to make a copy (there obviously is a legitimate defense here... Dick sounds like a garbage-sniffer)...

Oh, and the fact that the movie is about to premiere, isn't important anymore? Dick doesn't want a case (he knows he'd loose) - he wants the extra publicity.

Quote:

---

Oh, and the fact that the movie is about to premiere, isn't important anymore? Dick doesn't want a case (he knows he'd loose) - he wants the extra publicity.

---

That's the gist of it, nothing like free publicity, it may not be ethically correct, but it seems that both parties will have gotten what they wanted in the end....If anything the next person(s) that submit material to MPAA, will have lawyers present and documents signed......sort of a learning curve for everyone, but overall IMO the MPAA may have dodged a bullet......... :rolleyes:

$$ + Lobbyists >= Law

If you have enough money and enough friends in the right places you can do anything you like.

i.e. Pen tester who go jailed (or fined memory fails me) for typing [../../] Vs Sony who deliberately installed malware on thousands of PCs (including Gov machines) and walked away.