MPAA is caught illegally copying movies

Discussion in 'DVD Video' started by Modemac, Jan 24, 2006.

  1. Modemac

    Modemac Guest

    Modemac, Jan 24, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Walter Traprock, Jan 25, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Not that anyone would abuse the situation, but right now, because of
    the Oscars coming, the movies binaries groups are flooded with high
    quality copies of DVD "review screeners" of damn near every movie that
    came out in 2005, including many that are not available for rental yet.

    Shameful.

    I just happened to notice this and thought I would mention it.

    I have heard tell that the Syriana copy for instance is excellent, if
    you don't mind "Property of Warner Borthers" flashing at the bottom of
    the screen every now and then.
     
    Rev. Ivan Stang, Jan 25, 2006
    #3
  4. Rev. Ivan Stang wrote:

    > Not that anyone would abuse the situation, but right now, because of
    > the Oscars coming, the movies binaries groups are flooded with high
    > quality copies of DVD "review screeners" of damn near every movie that
    > came out in 2005, including many that are not available for rental yet.
    >
    > Shameful.
    >
    > I just happened to notice this and thought I would mention it.
    >
    > I have heard tell that the Syriana copy for instance is excellent, if
    > you don't mind "Property of Warner Borthers" flashing at the bottom of
    > the screen every now and then.
    >


    Well, BAFTA could have used that earlier, because the screeners they got
    sent wouldn't play in the UK.

    --
    Evelyn C. Leeper
    Civilization is a movement, not a condition;
    it is a voyage, not a harbor. -Arthur Toynbee
     
    Evelyn C. Leeper, Jan 25, 2006
    #4
  5. Modemac

    shawn Guest

    On 25 Jan 2006 07:10:51 -0800, "Rev. Ivan Stang" <>
    wrote:

    >Not that anyone would abuse the situation, but right now, because of
    >the Oscars coming, the movies binaries groups are flooded with high
    >quality copies of DVD "review screeners" of damn near every movie that
    >came out in 2005, including many that are not available for rental yet.



    Wasn't there supposed to be a move to some sort of secure release of
    DVD screeners? Seems that I recall a mention of special players being
    sent to each reviewer with keyed copies of the DVDs so that if someone
    copied them it would be possible to uniquely identify the source. Did
    that not happen, or just not yet?
     
    shawn, Jan 25, 2006
    #5
  6. Modemac

    Modemac Guest

    > Wasn't there supposed to be a move to some sort of secure release of
    > DVD screeners? Seems that I recall a mention of special players being
    > sent to each reviewer with keyed copies of the DVDs so that if someone
    > copied them it would be possible to uniquely identify the source. Did
    > that not happen, or just not yet?


    Not only that, but a member of the Academy was kicked out and forced to
    resign his membership last year, because he passed on a DVD copy of an
    Oscar screener to a friend and that friend promptly put the movie onto
    the Internet.

    --
    The High Weirdness Project
    http://www.modemac.com
     
    Modemac, Jan 25, 2006
    #6
  7. Modemac

    Goro Guest

    Evelyn C. Leeper wrote:
    > Rev. Ivan Stang wrote:
    >
    > > Not that anyone would abuse the situation, but right now, because of
    > > the Oscars coming, the movies binaries groups are flooded with high
    > > quality copies of DVD "review screeners" of damn near every movie that
    > > came out in 2005, including many that are not available for rental yet.
    > >
    > > Shameful.
    > >
    > > I just happened to notice this and thought I would mention it.
    > >
    > > I have heard tell that the Syriana copy for instance is excellent, if
    > > you don't mind "Property of Warner Borthers" flashing at the bottom of
    > > the screen every now and then.
    > >

    >
    > Well, BAFTA could have used that earlier, because the screeners they got
    > sent wouldn't play in the UK.


    And there was that thing with Spielberg's MUNICH not playing.

    -goro-
     
    Goro, Jan 25, 2006
    #7
  8. Modemac

    Zapanaz Guest

    On 25 Jan 2006 10:51:34 -0800, "Goro" <> wrote:

    >
    >Evelyn C. Leeper wrote:
    >> Rev. Ivan Stang wrote:
    >>
    >> > Not that anyone would abuse the situation, but right now, because of
    >> > the Oscars coming, the movies binaries groups are flooded with high
    >> > quality copies of DVD "review screeners" of damn near every movie that
    >> > came out in 2005, including many that are not available for rental yet.
    >> >
    >> > Shameful.
    >> >
    >> > I just happened to notice this and thought I would mention it.
    >> >
    >> > I have heard tell that the Syriana copy for instance is excellent, if
    >> > you don't mind "Property of Warner Borthers" flashing at the bottom of
    >> > the screen every now and then.
    >> >

    >>
    >> Well, BAFTA could have used that earlier, because the screeners they got
    >> sent wouldn't play in the UK.

    >
    >And there was that thing with Spielberg's MUNICH not playing.
    >
    >-goro-


    Well I've seen Munich; a copy of Munich not playing is not a bad
    thing.

    --
    Zapanaz
    International Satanic Conspiracy
    Customer Support Specialist
    http://joecosby.com/
    `Now Danelle's big blue eyes looked thoughtfully inward.' -- Robert Jordan, The Fires of Heaven
     
    Zapanaz, Jan 25, 2006
    #8
  9. MPAA finds itself accused of piracy (was: MPAA is caught illegally copying movies)

    Modemac wrote:
    > http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060124-6036.html


    Points back to this article:

    SUNDANCE FILM FESTIVAL: MPAA finds itself accused of piracy

    http://www.latimes.com/business/custom/cotown/cl-et-mpaa24jan24,0,2188275.story
    http://tinyurl.com/a2hex

    By John Horn
    Times Staff Writer

    6:08 AM PST, January 24, 2006

    PARK CITY, Utah - The Motion Picture Assn. of America, the leader in
    the global fight against movie piracy, is being accused of unlawfully
    making a bootleg copy of a documentary that takes a critical look at
    the MPAA's film ratings system.

    The MPAA admitted Monday that it had duplicated "This Film Is Not Yet
    Rated" without the filmmaker's permission after director Kirby Dick
    submitted his movie in November for an MPAA rating. The Hollywood trade
    organization said that it did not break copyright law, insisting that
    the dispute is part of a Dick-orchestrated "publicity stunt" to boost
    the film's profile.

    Scheduled to debut at the Sundance Film Festival on Wednesday night,
    "This Film Is Not Yet Rated" examines what Dick believes are the MPAA's
    stricter standards for rating explicit depictions of sex than for
    gruesome violence. Dick also explores whether independent films are
    rated more harshly than studio films, whether scenes of gay sex are
    restricted more than scenes of straight sex, and why the 10 members of
    the MPAA's ratings board operate without any public accountability.

    Michael Donaldson, a lawyer representing Dick, has written the MPAA
    demanding that it "immediately return all copies" of the film in its
    possession, and explain who approved the making of the copy and who
    within the MPAA has looked at the reproduction.

    Dick said he was "very upset and troubled" to discover during a recent
    conversation with an MPAA lawyer that the MPAA had copied the film from
    a digital version he submitted Nov. 29 for a rating. ("This Film Is Not
    Yet Rated" was rated NC-17 for "some graphic sexual content," a rating
    upheld after Dick appealed.) The MPAA's copy of Dick's film was viewed
    by Dan Glickman, the MPAA's new president, the MPAA said.

    The filmmaker said that when he asked MPAA lawyer Greg Goeckner what
    right his organization had to make the copy, Goeckner told him that
    Dick and his crew had potentially invaded the privacy of the MPAA's
    movie raters.

    "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. She said Dick spied on the members of the MPAA's
    Classification and Rating Administration, including going through their
    garbage and following them as they drove their children to school.

    "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.

    The standard the MPAA is using for itself appears to be at odds with
    what the organization sets out for others: "Manufacturing, selling,
    distributing or making copies of motion pictures without the consent of
    the copyright owners is illegal," the MPAA's website says. "Movie
    pirates are thieves, plain and simple.... ALL forms of piracy are
    illegal and carry serious legal consequences."

    Donaldson said in an interview that the MPAA previously had promised in
    writing that it would not copy the film, but an e-mail exchange does
    not completely support that claim.

    Donaldson added that while he is not planning at this time to sue the
    MPAA for copyright infringement, he reserved the possibility of filing
    a lawsuit later. "It's my practice and style to wait and see what they
    do, go over all of our options, and then make a decision," he said.

    Dick, who was nominated for an Academy Award for 2004's documentary
    feature "Twist of Faith," said in an interview that his film crew acted
    appropriately in tracking down and identifying the anonymous members of
    the movie ratings board. But even if he didn't "follow all the rules,"
    Dick said, "I don't know how that allows somebody else to break the
    law."

    Bernards said the MPAA has made copies of other films submitted for
    ratings, but did not identify any by name.

    When Dick submitted his film for a rating, he asked in an e-mail for
    assurances that "no copies would be made of any part or all of the
    film," according to a copy of the e-mail exchange.

    In a reply e-mail, an MPAA representative did not specifically say the
    organization wouldn't copy the film, but did say "the confidentiality
    of your film ... is our first priority. Please feel assure (sic) that
    your film is in good hands."

    The MPAA's Bernards, who said Glickman was unavailable for comment,
    said the organization was operating lawfully when it copied Dick's
    movie without his or his producer's authorization. "The courts
    recognize that parties are entitled to make a copy of a work for use as
    evidence in possible future proceedings," she said.

    The MPAA has not brought any legal actions against Dick, but did call
    the police when the movie raters complained about being stalked and
    were worried about their safety. The raters had no idea they were being
    followed as part of a documentary.

    Donaldson said he was unaware of any legal cases that supported the
    MPAA's position.

    One expert on intellectual property and copyright law said that while
    he was unfamiliar with any cases specifically addressing the issue, the
    MPAA's argument might work.

    "You can't make a copy as a general matter, but you can if you meet
    several tests," said Mark Lemley, a professor at Stanford Law School.
    It helps the MPAA, Lemley said, that it is not selling the copy of
    "This Film Is Not Yet Rated" for commercial gain.

    Dick "is right to say you can't make a single copy unless you have a
    legitimate defense," Lemley said. "But it seems that in this case, [the
    MPAA] may have a legitimate defense."
     
    Fred Goodwin, CMA, Jan 25, 2006
    #9
  10. Modemac

    Fwap Guest

    On Wed, 25 Jan 2006 11:42:32 -0500, "Evelyn C. Leeper"
    <> wrote:

    >Rev. Ivan Stang wrote:
    >
    >> Not that anyone would abuse the situation, but right now, because of
    >> the Oscars coming, the movies binaries groups are flooded with high
    >> quality copies of DVD "review screeners" of damn near every movie that
    >> came out in 2005, including many that are not available for rental yet.
    >>
    >> Shameful.
    >>
    >> I just happened to notice this and thought I would mention it.
    >>
    >> I have heard tell that the Syriana copy for instance is excellent, if
    >> you don't mind "Property of Warner Borthers" flashing at the bottom of
    >> the screen every now and then.
    >>

    >
    >Well, BAFTA could have used that earlier, because the screeners they got
    >sent wouldn't play in the UK.


    Somehow, this factoid gives me that cozy, warm feeling
    inside. Like internal haemmoraging, but on morphine.

    ....
     
    Fwap, Jan 26, 2006
    #10
  11. Modemac

    GMAN Guest

    In article <>, wrote:
    >On 25 Jan 2006 07:10:51 -0800, "Rev. Ivan Stang" <>
    >wrote:
    >
    >>Not that anyone would abuse the situation, but right now, because of
    >>the Oscars coming, the movies binaries groups are flooded with high
    >>quality copies of DVD "review screeners" of damn near every movie that
    >>came out in 2005, including many that are not available for rental yet.

    >
    >
    >Wasn't there supposed to be a move to some sort of secure release of
    >DVD screeners? Seems that I recall a mention of special players being
    >sent to each reviewer with keyed copies of the DVDs so that if someone
    >copied them it would be possible to uniquely identify the source. Did
    >that not happen, or just not yet?
    >
    >

    blu ray anyone?
     
    GMAN, Jan 26, 2006
    #11
  12. Modemac

    Zapanaz Guest

    On Thu, 26 Jan 2006 02:45:01 +0100, Fwap <> wrote:

    >Somehow, this factoid gives me that cozy, warm feeling
    >inside. Like internal haemmoraging, but on morphine.


    baha

    ..sig!

    --
    Zapanaz
    International Satanic Conspiracy
    Customer Support Specialist
    http://joecosby.com/
    Turn the other cheek and I'll break your fucking chin.

    - RZA, WuTang Clan
     
    Zapanaz, Jan 26, 2006
    #12
  13. Goro wrote:

    > Evelyn C. Leeper wrote:
    >>
    >>Well, BAFTA could have used that earlier, because the screeners they got
    >>sent wouldn't play in the UK.

    >
    > And there was that thing with Spielberg's MUNICH not playing.


    That was the film I meant.

    --
    Evelyn C. Leeper
    Civilization is a movement, not a condition;
    it is a voyage, not a harbor. -Arthur Toynbee
     
    Evelyn C. Leeper, Jan 26, 2006
    #13
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Andy Foster
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    419
    Guest
    Apr 15, 2004
  2. Ablang
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    1,067
    Ablang
    Sep 14, 2005
  3. Steve
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    601
    Steve
    Apr 25, 2004
  4. Replies:
    0
    Views:
    383
  5. Mutley
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    302
    Roger_Nickel
    Jun 26, 2004
Loading...

Share This Page