MPAA copies movies too!

[shelbyGT]

Well if they get the right under Fair Use, why don't I?

[gadgetguy]

You do. If your neighbor gives you a video to review and it shows him stealing tools from your garage, you can make a copy as evidence of the crime, and give the video back so he doesn't realize you're on to him.

[adam]

Sounds exactly like the justifcation for personal backups of DVDs that you already own, but thats not considered Fair Use - is it?

This matter has never been litigated and probably never will be so there is no answer to your question. Fair Use is a defense. You raise it when when applicable and to date the MPAA has never sued anyone for making personal backups.

But personally I do think that one should have a greater right to protect their SAFETY than to protect an investment, especially one that is relatively minor. That does not mean that I don't think you should be able to make a backup of a DVD, under Fair Use or some other legal doctrine/statute. But I really do not see how this is relevant to this issue. Fair Use is not a popularity contest. Forget about who the party is or what their beliefs are. If you believe Fair Use should protect personal backups than I do not see how there can be an argument that it should not protect preservation of evidence of a potential crime. Copyright law should NOT prevent you from protecting your physical health/well-being, I don't care who you are.

If the MPAA wanted to live within the letter of the law and not cause such a broohaha they should have brought all the employees together for a private showing using the one legitimate copy they were given. :P

I agree that the MPAA probably could have handled things better but having their employees view it does not preserve any evidence. The MPAA was well within their right to at least make one copy to either hand over to the authorities, or to hold onto in the event that they later needed to have charges pressed. You are authorized to retain evidence, that you otherwise might not be authorized to possess, so long as it is in contemplation of future litigation and so long as that is the only reason you are retaining it. The question is how many copies they made and how careful they were with how they were used, but their actions are simply not going to amount to copyright infringement in my opinion.

What everyone needs to understand is that there is more than just copyright law being applied here. There are also laws of evidence and equitable principles which basically amount to good ole common sense. You know if someone writes a death threat out that this is also a work of art protected by copyright? If they send it to you are you going to be concerned about the CIVIL ($$$) implications of making a copy or are you going to make a copy because of its potential CRIMINAL nature in relation to you?

[Headbanger's Ball]

Legally gathering information for a documentary and writing death threats are in no way comparable! Granted, going through trash & following people isn't a nice way to go about your research but it's hardly a crime. I believe 20/20 & 48 Hours have done similiar.
I do believe if the MPAA truly believed they were in danger, they would have informed the people involved and called in a lawyer. One copy would be enough for evidence, not many copies. Once the DA or any other lawyer, decided there was not enough evidence to persue litigation, the copy must be destroyed.
---------------
I hope this goes to court (it won't) just so there is a precident one way or another. Not that it would matter to me, I don't follow the MPAA's rules and have no desire to start now that they are like someone puffing a Marlboro and telling me I shouldn't smoke...no credibility.

[adam]

WTF are you psychic or something? How do you know this guy gathered all of his information legally? Rummaging through garbage and following people CAN constitute stalking under certain circumstances (done on private property for example) which is a crime and who knows what else this guy did. And we are talking about punishing someone under frickin' copyright law for being overly careful about their phsyical well-being? The question is not whether this filmmaker actually broke the law, the question is whether the MPAA and its employees were reasonable in suspecting that a law might have been violated. A number of MPAA employees filed police reports complaining of stalking before the MPAA ever received the film. At the very least they had reason to be concerned.

And then the MPAA gets a copy of the film documenting all of their potential claims. The MPAA has no authority to have charges pressed, that's something the individual victims must do. They DID inform their employees about this, that's the whole point of the article! They made copies of the videos to show their employees that they had been filmed and who knows what else. Suprise, you're on camera and you didn't know it, now you decide whether you want to press charges or not.

You can't have it both ways. You say you want precedence on this but trust me you do not. If the MPAA was sucessfully sued than that would be a substantial blow to Fair Use, it would place Copyright Law on a higher priority than Criminal Law, and it would decrease your right to privacy and your right to gather evidence against a potential stalker. I for one dont give a crap what happens to the MPAA. But I know that I don't want my personal privacy and safety diminished because of a stupid movie. This is an example of copyright law being taken to far. The fact that its being done against the MPAA for a change doesn't make it right.

I stand by my original assessment. If the roles were reversed and it were a private citizen being sued by the MPAA for copyright infringement because they made copies to be used as evidence, than everyone would be arguing against the MPAA and against the notion that Copyright Law should be used in this manner.[/b]

[mbellot]

If the MPAA wanted to live within the letter of the law and not cause such a broohaha they should have brought all the employees together for a private showing using the one legitimate copy they were given. :P

I agree that the MPAA probably could have handled things better but having their employees view it does not preserve any evidence. The MPAA was well within their right to at least make one copy to either hand over to the authorities, or to hold onto in the event that they later needed to have charges pressed. You are authorized to retain evidence, that you otherwise might not be authorized to possess, so long as it is in contemplation of future litigation and so long as that is the only reason you are retaining it. The question is how many copies they made and how careful they were with how they were used, but their actions are simply not going to amount to copyright infringement in my opinion.

Its not the copying I would take exception to, its the distribution to multiple employees. Certainly making one copy if there was possible "evidence" value would be fine, but making god knows how many copies and disbursing them to employees when they had specifically agreed in writing not to seems to cross the line of reasonable fair use.

Just my opinion, IANAL. :P

[adam]

I won't argue with that, but we don't know how many copies they made and I would presume the copies were either given to or made available (you all can watch this copy) to those employees who were the subject of the film. The film followed the members of the MPAA ratings committe which is made up of only 12 members. They also admitted to making copies for unspecified reasons in the past. But we can only go on what facts we know and that ain't much. I just cannot imagine that there is any judge in the nation that would consider this copyright infringement, whether the MPAA is suing or the one being sued.

And again, the MPAA denies that they ever agreed to anything in writing. We can only go on what facts we know.

[gadgetguy]

We can only go on what facts we know.

That's the point I've been trying to make the whole time.

[Sabro]

I see don't see how dulicating this movie has helped 'protect' the employees of the MPAA from possible crimes.

Is the MPAA now trained at handling crimes such as stalking, trespassing and the likes? If they had any worries about these crimes being commited then the so called evidence should have been turned over to the proper authorities... Duplicating the 'evidence' and attempting to handle the matter on their own by providing their employees with a copy is not the way to go.

Let the authorities determine if a crime has truely been committed, contact and interview the suspected victims and quit scapegoating cause they are in a pinch. Failing to report a possible crime with knowledge has to account for something as well, should it be determined if any crimes were actually committed.... oh well nuff said

Sabro

[adam]

http://www.latimes.com/business/custom/cotown/cl-et-mpaa24jan24,0,2188275.story?coll=l...o&track=widget

I found a bit more on this in another paper. They did make just one copy and so far only the MPAA president has seen it. The original was shown to the 10 (I was a bit off when I said 12 before) members of the Ratings board that were the subjects of the film. They are keeping the copy in their vault in the event that any of the employees proceed with criminal charges.

Sabro, I will say it again. The alleged crime was reported well before the filmmaker submitted his film. Several of the employees contacted the police regarding alleged stalking and they had no idea they were being followed as part of a film. After receiving the film the MPAA itself DID inform police of the alleged stalking and the existence of the film. They did not fail to report a crime. The MPAA is not the one who can press charges it is the individual employees. That's why they were shown the film.

[FulciLives]

If the MPAA wanted to live within the letter of the law and not cause such a broohaha they should have brought all the employees together for a private showing using the one legitimate copy they were given. :P

That sums up my thoughts as well. As I said earlier I could see them making one or two copies for legal use but not actually making multiple copies to distribute amoung multiple employees.

Your suggestion ties in with mine nicely and I would not have had a problem with a private employee only showing.

- John "FulciLives" Coleman

*** EDIT ***
oops ... I just read the last post by Adam after I posted this

[tonydead]

And what in the world does this hurt the guy except in the event it is used against him in a suit?

[quote]3. Has no effect on the copyright holder, the backup is not being loaned/rented out or distributed via P2P.

$10 says one of these copies made by MPAA ends up on P2P. Proving that not only MPAA Corp., but one or some of it's employees are crooked.

[adam]

Well if that happened than obviously the person(s) responsible would be liable for copyright infringement. But right now there is one copy and it is sitting in a vault. I'm guessing its pretty safe.

[celtic_druid]

Wouldn't the employees filmed have already seen it? I mean when they rated it. After all that was why the MPPA had it in the first place.

[gadgetguy]

Not all employees of the MPAA are film reviewers. It's not clear which employees are affected.

[adam]

Yes celtic_druid they would have seen it anyway. I was really guessing earlier because the linked to article didn't go into alot of detail, but that other one I found does. The copy was not made to have something to show the 10 member board, it was made to keep as evidence.

[DereX888]

"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." <-- hahahahaha

...but we don't know how many copies they made...

The copy was not made to have something to show the 10 member board, it was made to keep as evidence.

The amount of copies or the reason for copying DOES NOT MATTER, as you have told me many times in our discussions on the subject. Its the ACT OF COPYING which is illegal, as you have said yourself many times
IMO only police, FBI etc etc have right to copy something for 'evidence purpose'...
Anyway, adam, *I agree* what MPAA did is clearly fair use.
However it is the MPAA itself who *disagree* and says it ain't fair use.
According to MPAA "copying without copyright owner consent is plain theft" (read on their site), and this is EXACTLY WHAT THEY DO
Will MPAA sue itself in court? I hope so!

[painkiller]

Based on my rather limited legal knowledge:

1) I thought that access to garbage/trash particular to a person/family address may be considered trespassing - but if placed within right-of-way/community-public areas then such access isn't considered illegal. (Questionable and highly dubious practices, of course.)

2) Following someone but not acting in a threatening manner? Stalker laws are relatively recent and probably not thoroughly court-tested. Even so, wouldn't such activity also (supposedly) curtail news gathering efforts by professionals and amateurs alike?

I don't know how these play across different jurisdictions, but I'd take a wild guess and say these issues are likely strong points that will be vigorously exercised in this case. That is, should it come to trial. (And, if so, I would hope a jury trial.)

[DereX888]

Based on my rather limited legal knowledge:

1) I thought that access to garbage/trash particular to a person/family address may be considered trespassing - but if placed within right-of-way/community-public areas then such access isn't considered illegal. (Questionable and highly dubious practices, of course.)

2) Following someone but not acting in a threatening manner? Stalker laws are relatively recent and probably not thoroughly court-tested. Even so, wouldn't such activity also (supposedly) curtail news gathering efforts by professionals and amateurs alike?

I don't know how these play across different jurisdictions, but I'd take a wild guess and say these issues are likely strong points that will be vigorously exercised in this case. That is, should it come to trial. (And, if so, I would hope a jury trial.)

MPAA is not police or FBI, its not even a government agency IIRC.
If any of their employees felt like they were stalked or threaten upon, they should have call police.
It has nothing to do with, and doesn't give them the reason to copy this film.
However, if this film contains scenes depicting any 'crime' MPAA defend itself with (stalking, invasion of privacy etc) they should have notify the law defenders (aka police) and pass them the 'evidence' (the film itself).
I see no room for making copy of Dick's film even if he kills someone in his movie
The only viable explanation for making the copy MPAA did - is the good old fair use clause, but they will never admit that, because it would undermine their entire 'philosophy' of "you make any copy = you are a pirate"

[adam]

The amount of copies or the reason for copying DOES NOT MATTER, as you have told me many times in our discussions on the subject. Its the ACT OF COPYING which is illegal, as you have said yourself many times

I have never said any such thing. I have always made it clear that Fair Use is an affirmative defense to any form of copying of copyrighted content where applicable and the amount of copying and the purpose for copying are both express prongs of the Fair Use test.

The MPAA does not make the law. I don't care what they post on their website. That might make them hypocrites but it doesn't change my opinion of what Fair Use is or isn't and it doesn't mean that the doctrine no longer applies to them. Maybe things they call copyright infringement would fall under Fair Use. That is something for another thread. We are talking about what the MPAA did here and I believe that it is Fair Use. I believe there are other legal defenses as well such as estoppel and laches.

I am being as objective as possible and judging the act itself and not the party responsible. Would you still call this copyright infringement if it were the MPAA suing the filmmaker for making a copy? Would you still say this shouldn't fall under Fair Use? No offense but I believe you would do a complete 180.

[adam]

MPAA is not police or FBI, its not even a government agency IIRC.If any of their employees felt like they were stalked or threaten upon, they should have call police.

Read the article DereX888. Not the redacted version that is linked to in the first post but the full story that I posted. The employees did contact the police. When the MPAA got the video they also called the police again.

You do not have to be affiliated with the police or a government agency to retain evidence of a crime that pertains to you. Any private citizen or organization can do it. How do you think people make criminal complaints? They do it by gathering evidence and giving it to the authorities along with their sworn statement. I'm not talking about going out and collecting evidence. I'm talking about things in your possession that incriminate the suspect. The MPAA had to give the original film back to the filmmaker. If they wanted to use it as evidence later they'd need a copy.

[adam]

1) I thought that access to garbage/trash particular to a person/family address may be considered trespassing - but if placed within right-of-way/community-public areas then such access isn't considered illegal. (Questionable and highly dubious practices, of course.)

2) Following someone but not acting in a threatening manner? Stalker laws are relatively recent and probably not thoroughly court-tested. Even so, wouldn't such activity also (supposedly) curtail news gathering efforts by professionals and amateurs alike?

You are correct that poking through someone's trash is generally permissible as long as its not on private property. But stalking does not prohibit any specific activity (besides things that are obviously going to far) rather stalking is more concerned with the effect. Stalking is a terror crime. It occurs when you put the person in reaonable belief that you are threatening them in some way, and that has to be your actual intention as well. So its a matter of degree. Poking through garbage left in the street for the purposes of news/filmmaking is probably not stalking. But doing it every day over an extended period can be.

[somebodeez]

I believe there are other legal defenses as well such as estoppel and laches.

What are those?

[adam]

Both are equitable defenses meaning they are fairly non-descript. They have elements, but cannot be exactly penned down.

Estoppel means that you yourself have contributed to your cause of action or damages, or your actions in some way make it unfair for you to turn around and complain. Latches is similar but it requires an extraordinary circumstance and existence of "unclean hands." Basically the guy complaining is no saint either.

If the guy committed a crime against the employees and violated their rights in making the film, then his rights to sue to protect his film are more limited.

[somebodeez]

Interesting - thanks

[DereX888]

Would you still call this copyright infringement if it were the MPAA suing the filmmaker for making a copy? Would you still say this shouldn't fall under Fair Use? No offense but I believe you would do a complete 180.

no.
I said what MPAA did (copying film for its internal use) falls clearly under fair use in my opinion, did you miss that part?
I also said its the MPAA itself who sees such act as piracy, hence they ought to sue themself!
I wouldnt 'do a complete180' - its the MPAA who just did complete 180 when it happens on their own turf.

[adam]

Yes I did miss that. In that case we are in agreement, except on the point of suing oneself.