Here we'll explore the nexus of legal rulings, Capitol Hill
policy-making, technical standards development, and technological
innovation that creates -- and will recreate -- the networked world as we
know it. Among the topics we'll touch on: intellectual property
conflicts, technical architecture and innovation, the evolution of
copyright, private vs. public interests in Net policy-making, lobbying
and the law, and more.
Disclaimer: the opinions expressed in this weblog are those of the authors and not of their respective institutions.
...except when the Cartel does it. No, really. As this year's Sundance movie festival winds to a close, the MPAA is shamefacedly admitting it pirated a film. Well, sort of. They don't all seem to be speaking from the same script.
The bootlegging apparently took place late last November, when the film This Film Is Not Yet Rated was itself submitted for an MPAA rating. The documentary attempts to uncover the secretive MPAA ratings process, the people who do the rating, and apparently takes a fairly critical look at this process and American culture.
The MPAA is still denying charges... err, well, sort of. Some of the MPAA's officers and lawyers appear to be admitting that they did pirate the movie, but for what they claim are good reasons. Clearly the filmmaker's investigation into the MPAA's movie-rating process and its prejudices hasn't sat well with the MPAA. And, as the LA Times story points out, the MPAA appears to be operating under a double standard - telling the public that "ALL forms of piracy are illegal" but trying to justify its own piracy. Of course, if the MPAA is forced to admit that there are good reasons for making personal copies... well, camel, nose, tent.
They've been vocal enough about telling everyone how every instance of unauthorized copying is wrong that they deserve exactly what they lobbied congress to get; to go to jail and pay $250000 per illegal copy.
Sucks to be on the wrong end of disproportional punishment, doesn't it?
The story is lacking. It doesn't explain how the filmmaker found out there was a copy. It doesn't explain what sort of copy it is, if it's not a personal use copy.
1. arty on January 27, 2006 2:09 PM writes...
Throw the book at em.
They've been vocal enough about telling everyone how every instance of unauthorized copying is wrong that they deserve exactly what they lobbied congress to get; to go to jail and pay $250000 per illegal copy.
Sucks to be on the wrong end of disproportional punishment, doesn't it?
Permalink to Comment2. Anonymous on January 27, 2006 3:14 PM writes...
Even better would be to see them making the fair use arguments they've blasted for the past ten years.
Permalink to Comment3. Nathan Jones on January 29, 2006 7:01 PM writes...
The story is lacking. It doesn't explain how the filmmaker found out there was a copy. It doesn't explain what sort of copy it is, if it's not a personal use copy.
Permalink to Comment