MPAA Cracks Down on eBay Movie Piracy

ShowBIZData.com ^ | 12/11/2002

[GeneD]

Culminating a months-long probe by the Motion Picture Association of America, during which investigators purchased pirated movies online, the MPAA on Tuesday filed federal civil lawsuits against what it claimed were bootleg film operators in eight states. The lawsuits, charging copyright infringement, were the first aimed at sales of movies over the Internet, most of them allegedly conducted over the eBay auction website. Previous suits had been aimed at producers of illegally copied DVDs, VCDs, and videocassettes sold on the streets or by mail order. The BBC reported Tuesday that some 12,000 fake DVDs were sold on the auction site over the course of just one year.

[GeneD]

I HATE Jack Valenti -- he'd have been right at home with the slime that testified before Rep. Burton today -- but when eBay has about 250 listings of copies of 8 Mile (most of them now "invalid," by the way), and some idiot tries to sell a thousand copies in a Featured-Plus Auction, somethin' scwewy's goin' on awound heah.

Given that most of the DVDs and VCDs seem to originate in Southeast Asia I wouldn't be surprised if Osama and Big Al have a hand in this. There's one good reason for not buying pirated intellectual property.

[Porter]

It is sad, people that do pirate movies usually DL them offline. They usually spend any where from 6 to a mind boggling 24 hours to DL movies. If they are ever, mass produced, the quality of the pictures is usually bad enough to catch the person doing it. Generally people that pirate movies are bigger losers than I am.The fact that the quality sucks is yet another reason for people to shut up. People usually buy the VCDs and DVDs anyway. Because they are re-mastered. This sounds like some big Exec's getting mad that they are losin maybe .003% of money possibly made because people get to see the movie before they buy it...(and if the movie sucks, that may discourage some from buying it.)

[Karsus]

It would be easier for me to buy DVD's if the MPAA would just quit trying to put people like me in prison for watching them under Linux.

[Timesink]

Jack Valenti and Bill Moyers alone reek more of evil than the entire Watergate crew combined.

[Not_Who_U_Think]

I have a friend who DLs movies, and yes it can take a while, depending on a number of factors. He has a machine dedicated to such tasks so it just grinds away until finished. Quality can be outstanding to poor, depending on how it was captured - a DVD rip can be almost as good as the original. Most newly-released movies are captured either by someone in the projection booth using a digital camera, or by ripping a VHS preview copy sent to a reviewer.

[lelio]

To your 'quality of copies sucks' comment -- that worked for VCR tapes, but with DVDs there isn't any loss between 1 copy and 100.
But you're right that this isn't much of a high on their earnings and are probably spending more (well spending MY tax dollars) money than the are loosing.
I think that's why DVD makers are trying to get tie-ins to websites for their productions. Its easier to create an infrastructure on a website to handle registration than on the DVD itself.
Part of me wants people to copy DVDs as 'the interests' are taking the DeCSS guy to court over his desire to play them under linux.

[wizzler]

Have you told your friend that he's a thief, and that what he's engaging in is immoral, unethical and illegal?

Just because something is possible to do doesn't make it OK.

Copyright is as important as any other property right, and anyone who believes in freedom should deeply respect that.

[js1138]

I was bidding on some OCR scanning software advertised as "Original disk damaged, this is a copy". I emailed the seller, asking if the original damaged disk would be included, or whether the copy was a replacement supplied by the manufacturer. A few hours later the auction was cancelled.

Whatever one thinks of copying for private use, I have no sympathy for people who sell copies.

[Karsus]

If copyright law follows what the Constitution said 'for a limited time' it would be easier to respect. Also, trying to get people who wish to watch DVD's under Linux/xBDS thrown in jail is immoral and unethical.

[wizzler]

What constitutes "limited time" is something reasonable people can disagree on, which is why such judgments are left to a democratic body such as Congress.

The sanctity of property rights, however, is not up for argument.

Nobody owes you or anyone else a disc that can be viewed under Linux. Sure, maybe their failure to cater to your format reveals a lack of business savvy. But it doesn't mean they're obligated to give you what you want, or to let you infringe their rights just so you can watch it the way you want. Successfully viewing the contents of a plastic disc on X, Y or Z operating system is not some God-given right of yours. A copyright owner protecting his property, on the other hand, is such a natural right.

Call the entertainment industry stupid, call them dinosaurs, call them Luddites. That's all fair. But they're in no way immoral for protecting their property.

It's too bad so many people who call themselves "conservative" -- which presumably entails a fundamental respect for property rights -- lose their philosophical compass on this issue.

[Karsus]

Not once did I say I steal their movies. I said I did not buy them.

How is it harming their rights to have a DVD viewable under Linux?

[Karsus]

Another point. Almost all the ads for DVD come out at say OWN IT TODAY. If I own the DVD why can't I play it on what I wish as long as I do not share it with those who have not bought it?

[wizzler]

I'm sorry if I implied you advocated stealing. That certainly wasn't my intention.

I also realize the Linux situation is not so much a copyright conflict as it is a battle about reverse engineering and the legal protection of trade secrets, which is what the DVD industry considers its encryption scheme to be.

In that sense I would say that the jury's still out (maybe even literally?) on what's right and wrong. Is anybody actually being threatened with jail time, though? Isn't this all civil court stuff?

[joebuck]

"Have you told your friend that he's a thief, and that what he's engaging in is immoral, unethical and illegal?"

A thief? Not hardly. At least not in my State. (Indiana). In Indiana (and most other States)Theft requires that the defendant exert unauthorized control over the property of another with the intent to deprive the owner of the use or value of the property. Downloading a song over a PTP network does not deprive the copyright owner of the use or value of his song. Since I would never have purchased the song I downloaded, the "owner" has not been deprived of a thing by my actions. Violation of copyright laws? - possibly. Theft? - no way.

[wizzler]

OK, well, to avoid wrangling over semantics and the word "thief," have you told your friend that what he's engaging in is immoral, unethical and illegal?

[Karsus]

http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/6/28504.html

"
The trial of a Norwegian teen accused of developing a utility that enables people to illegally copy DVD movies opened in Oslo yesterday.

Jon Johansen has pleaded not guilty to charges that carry a maximum sentence of up to two years in jail or huge fines and compensation for his role in creating and distributing the "DVD cracking" DeCSS utility. "

[Karsus]

You might be suprised what people consider immoral, unethical and illegal on FR. Just yesterday I was told that my wife and I should be killed by the state because we enjoy oral sex.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/804190/posts?page=212#212
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/804190/posts?page=201#201

[steve-b]

The sanctity of property rights, however, is not up for argument.

Here we find the crux of the confusion. A copyright is not a property right of the sort one has over a physical object. It is, rather, a monopoly created by an affirmative act of the state. While the rights created by copyright law are as worthy of protection as other rights, there are critical points of difference which must be kept in mind.

But it doesn't mean they're obligated to give you what you want, or to let you infringe their rights just so you can watch it the way you want

Er, we are talking about someone watching a DVD he owns using a computer he owns. The people who sold the DVD exchanged all their rights concerning that copy for whatever cash was handed over -- there is nothing to infringe (provided that additional copies are not created and distributed, of course).

Successfully viewing the contents of a plastic disc on X, Y or Z operating system is not some God-given right of yours.

Success in any endeavor is never guaranteed. The right to pursue any endeavor, absent a showing that it entails a violation of others' rights, is guaranteed in a free society.

But they're in no way immoral for protecting their property.

Again, what they have is not "property", but a government monopoly on the duplication and distribution of certain information, and even this is not violated by the viewing of a lawfully obtained DVD on a lawfully obtained computer.

[steve-b]

I also realize the Linux situation is not so much a copyright conflict as it is a battle about reverse engineering and the legal protection of trade secrets, which is what the DVD industry considers its encryption scheme to be.

If one of the MPAA's lawyers called DeCSS a "trade secret" in open court, then I would expect that he's now a lawyer looking for a job.

A "trade secret", by its nature, depends on successful concealment. If somebody else figures out your trade secret by reverse engineering or independent research, then you're SOL. (On the other hand, if someone outright steals your trade secret through a black-bag job or subornation of one of the secret keepers, then you have cause for legal action.)

[wizzler]

Here we find the crux of the confusion. A copyright is not a property right of the sort one has over a physical object.

But the very purpose of copyright is to provide intellectual property with protection that's akin to that of a "physical object." If creativity literally plopped out of our brains in little nuggets we could hold in our hands, there would have been no need for the state to define and codify it. So for the purposes of discussing copyright, it's certainly OK to call intellectual property "property." That's what it is under law, no matter how we got there.

I've acknowledged the distinction between the DVD encryption situation and other copyright issues. Sorry I crammed it all together and muddled the basic point I was trying to make. When it comes down to it, yes, I certainly have the right to do whatever I want with the actual round piece of plastic I've bought -- put it in my cat's food dish, try to make it play on my operating system, whatever.

The contents of that disc, of course, remain the property of someone else (the copyright owner). But it sounds like we already agree that it is wrong to use decryption to distribute unlicensed copies of a work.