MPAA caught pirating movie

[N9IWP]

Was the DVd copy protected? if so, the MPAA probably violated the DMCA.

Brian

[CynicalGabe]

@Uncommon Sense

They could argue that making any copy is private financial gain, since you don’t have to shell out the dough to rent it again or if it gets stolen or broken you won’t have to pay to replace it.

That logic is only valid if the copying-party would have spent the money to begin with. Someone who copies 30 movies likely would not have purchased 30 DVDs at $20 apiece in the first place, so the MPAA couldn’t argue that the infrigement cost them $600.

[duffer]

@RealityChuck

The issue is that the MPAA and RIAA are right about piracy and copying and I fully support their efforts in that area: people should be prevented from ripping off the artists the profess to admire.

I have a question about actor’s salaries for movies. (And I know there are always exceptions.)

I know bands often get royalties for their music, but do actors get royalties, normally, for their movies?

[Spatial_Rift_47]

Otto, chill. This isn’t GD. Anyway, I never once said I was using this to justify anything. Since the MPAA is the only group I’ve seen take action on this matter, they’re the only ones losing enough money to care. That’s because the MPAA is made up of the companies that are making the movies. These are the moviemakers, and they’ve just demonstrated that they have no regard for their own stance on copying movies. Whatever the outcome of this court case is, it’s clear that they have violated the law they purport to uphold, in spirit if not in letter. In short, I no longer have any respect for whatever they might say on the subject.

[Elmer_MuD_PhuD]

@Otto

What specifically are/were your reservations about **stealing **movies, that the MPAA’s action has allowed you to set aside? Why do you feel that **stealing **from the people who created the movies you download is excused by the MPAA’s making one **copy **of this movie?

I guess I’m not understanding your point at all, as I am not getting how the MPAA’s making a **copy **of a film pardons the **theft **of millions of copies of thousands of movies.

I imagine they will probably continue to be as aggressive as they have always been.

Making one **copy **of this film in the mistaken belief that doing so was legal is in no way the legal, ethical or moral equivalent to your **stealing **movies. I have no reason to believe that the MPAA, in **copying **the film, was acting in anything other than a good faith belief that it had the right to do so. If it in fact turns out that the MPAA had no legal right to **copy **the film or otherwise acted in bad faith here, and if they fail to make it right, then I will happily join the chorus deriding it (which of course would still not excuse your or anyone else’s multiple thefts). I know for a stone fact that you have no legal right to **steal **the movies you’ve stolen, and attempting to justify your **thefts **based on the MPAA’s **action **is ridiculous.

The MPAA is saying that it is concerned that Dick invaded the privacy of its raters by following them around, digging through their trash, etc. Per the linked article:

The article goes on to quote Dick’s lawyer saying that he is unaware of case law which supports the MPAA position, which doesn’t mean there isn’t any or that the MPAA is necessarily wrong.

I’m just curious as to why you felt the need to differentiate between these two examples of copyright infringement.

@Otto

The MPAA is apparently maintaining that it has the right to copy the work to preserve it as evidence for possible future legal action based on allegations of invasion of privacy (a civil tort) of its raters.

I’m not a legal expert, but I was under the impression that such kinds of evidence could be gotten with warrants, court orders, and other such forms of legal wrangling. I was further under the impression that getting evidence illegally without one of these things made the evidence inadmissible. Also, would this mean that I can download a copy of a movie if I am contemplating a lawsuit against the filmmaker?

[Sublight]

@duffer

I have a question about actor’s salaries for movies. (And I know there are always exceptions.)

I know bands often get royalties for their music, but do actors get royalties, normally, for their movies?

Generally, I don’t think so, but some do. It depends on the payment deal that the individual actors and producers agrees to. A low-budget picture may offer royalties in exchange for a lower up-front payment, or an actor may insist on up-front money instead of royalties if he doesn’t think the film will be a big hit. Donald Sutherland got bitten on the ass by this when he insisted on immediate payment for his role in Animal House.

This thread mentions a few people who did unexpectedly well compared to their contemporaries because of shrewd royalty or syndication rights deals, including Jim Nabors and Audrey Meadows:
Famous People Whose Wealth (or Lack of) Surprised You

[Otto]

@Spatial Rift 47

Otto, chill. This isn’t GD.

So…then…not planning on answering the question?

@SR47

Anyway, I never once said I was using this to justify anything.

Well yeah, you kinda did, when you said that this wiped out any lingering reservations you had about stealing movies.

@SR47

Whatever the outcome of this court case is, it’s clear that they have violated the law they purport to uphold, in spirit if not in letter.

Well, no, if there is in fact case law allowing them to copy the movie to preserve it for evidentiary purposes, they have violated neither the letter nor the spirit of the law.

@SR47

In short, I no longer have any respect for whatever they might say on the subject.

Did you ever?

@Sublight

I’m just curious as to why you felt the need to differentiate between these two examples of copyright infringement.

As I said at least once before, if the MPAA was operating without a good faith belief that what it did was legal, then I’ll condemn it as loudly as the next person. If what it did was in fact legal under existing case law, then by definition it did not infringe the copyright.

@Sublight

I’m not a legal expert, but I was under the impression that such kinds of evidence could be gotten with warrants, court orders, and other such forms of legal wrangling. I was further under the impression that getting evidence illegally without one of these things made the evidence inadmissible.

You’re confusing criminal and civil. Private entities don’t have the power to issue warrants in civil matters, nor does the Fourth Amendment case law barring illegally obtained evidence pertain to them (AFAIK that is; if a lawyer checks in and tells me otherwise I’ll be glad to hear the correction). They can request discovery pursuant to the rules of the jurisdiction in which they file the lawsuit. The MPAA is apparently maintaining that it has the right to copy the movie as a measure of preserving evidence. Which, if correct, is simply another legal way of obtaining evidence.

@Sublight

Also, would this mean that I can download a copy of a movie if I am contemplating a lawsuit against the filmmaker?

I don’t know.

[Sublight]

Those last three quotes were Elmer MuD/PhuD, not me.

[Otto]

@Sublight

Those last three quotes were Elmer MuD/PhuD, not me.

Oops. Sorry about that. I was working off preview and somehow screwed it up. No inent to misattribute.

[OtakuLoki]

@RealityChuck

The issue is that the MPAA and RIAA are right about piracy and copying and I fully support their efforts in that area: people should be prevented from ripping off the artists the profess to admire.

But, as is too often the case, the MPAA and RIAA are greedy scum. And every time they act as greedy scum, the set their cause (and the cause of all creative people) back disasterously. Things like this, or CD price fixing, or SONY’s rootkit, or raising download prices, or Hollywood accounting, or any one of a dozen more incidents that stink of greed discredits them and allows the theives to rationalize their behavior.

Both groups are right, even though they are greedy scum. But they’d be better off in the long run if they stop being greedy scum.

Agreed.

[Spatial_Rift_47]

My first comment was not a justification. My point was, and is, that I no longer feel that the MPAA is doing anything other than greedy whining. I’ll reiterate: They are the moviemakers, and in copying Dick’s movie, legally or illegaly, they have demonstrated that they have no regard for their own stance on copying movies.

[Otto]

@Spatial Rift 47

I’ll reiterate: They are the moviemakers, and in copying Dick’s movie, legally or illegaly, they have demonstrated that they have no regard for their own stance on copying movies.

Can you enlighten me as to statements the MPAA has made in opposition to the legal copying of movies? If this was in fact a legal copy, or even if it was an illegal copy made in the good faith belief that it was legal and the MPAA makes good on it, then it should have no effect on anyone’s opinion of the MPAA’s stance on illegal copying.

[Spatial_Rift_47]

Okay, I’ll say it again. Legally or illegally, the MPAA has copied a movie. They did so to serve their own interests. Whether those interests were legitimate or not, they did it to serve them. Legally or illegally, they acted in their own interests instead of in the interests of the moviemaker. Splitting that hair serves no purpose.

[Otto]

Your position is ridiculous. Do you see no difference between acting legally to advance or maintain your interest and acting illegally to advance or maintain your interest?

[Spatial_Rift_47]

This is the last post I’m going to make in this thread, because your responses to me have been laced with ad hominems. So here it goes:

What makes the MPAA’s position indefensible is that they are the moviemakers, and they have acted against the explicitly stated wishes of another moviemaker in order to serve their own interests.

[Otto]

@Spatial Rift 47

This is the last post I’m going to make in this thread, because your responses to me have been laced with ad hominems.

I do not think that phrase means what you think it means.

@SR47

So here it goes:

What makes the MPAA’s position indefensible is that they are the moviemakers, and they have acted against the explicitly stated wishes of another moviemaker in order to serve their own interests.

So if Dick did something tortious in having the MPAA screeners followed, having their garbage gone through, etc. the MPAA isn’t supposed to preserve evidence of Dick’s illegal activity because Dick doesn’t want it to?

And, how again does your outrage at the MPAA for acting against Dick’s wishes square with your own acts against the wishes of those filmmakers whose wishes you have acted against by downloading movies?

[peri]

Otto, at no time did Spatial Rift 47 state he/she actually has downloaded movies. You made that assumption and continue to label Spatial Rift 47 a thief. Little wonder they feel attacked.

Why do you feel that stealing from the people who created the movies you download is excused by the MPAA’s making one copy of this movie?

I know for a stone fact that you have no legal right to steal the movies you’ve stolen, and attempting to justify your thefts based on the MPAA’s action is ridiculous.

And, how again does your outrage at the MPAA for acting against Dick’s wishes square with your own acts against the wishes of those filmmakers whose wishes you have acted against by downloading movies?

[Otto]

@peri

Otto, at no time did Spatial Rift 47 state he/she actually has downloaded movies. You made that assumption and continue to label Spatial Rift 47 a thief. Little wonder they feel attacked.

Did SR47 deny that he downloads movies? If he doesn’t, it would have been quite simple to say “I don’t download movies” in one of his posts. So perhaps I did make the assumption but absent a denial it seems the assumption is a safe one. If he doesn’t download movies then I apologize for making the assumption. If he does download movies, then it’s not an “attack” or an “ad hominem” to call a thief a thief.

[RealityChuck]

@duffer

I have a question about actor’s salaries for movies. (And I know there are always exceptions.)

I know bands often get royalties for their music, but do actors get royalties, normally, for their movies?

Usually there are salaries, but many contracts have bonuses, often determined to be a percentage of the net profits. Hollywood accounting make sure there isn’t a net profit.

Here’s a listing of some of the lawsuits – always settled, BTW, because once they come close to coming to trial, the studios throw money at the person bringing the suit to make it go away. They’d rather give up $5 million than have a court declare their practices are illegal and lose tons more.