Original Source

What happens when an organization that is best known for inveighing against the unauthorized copying of movies gets caught doing exactly that? The Motion Picture Association of America was caught with its pants down, admitting to making unauthorized copies of the documentary This Film Is Not Yet Rated in advance of this week's Sundance Film Festival.

This Film Is Not Yet Rated looks at the motion picture ratings system created and run by the MPAA. Director Kirby Dick submitted the film for rating in November. After receiving the movie, the MPAA subsequently made copies without Dick's permission. Dick had specifically requested in an e-mail that the MPAA not make copies of the movie. The MPAA responded by saying that "the confidentiality of your film is our first priority."

Dick later learned that the MPAA made copies of the film to distribute them to its employees, despite the MPAA's stance on unauthorized copying. Ah, there's nothing like the smell of hypocrisy in the morning-apparently the prohibition against copying films without the copyright owner's consent doesn't apply to the MPAA. A lawyer for the MPAA justified the organization's apparent hypocrisy by saying that Dick had invaded the privacy of some MPAA staffers, which justified the MPAA's actions.

"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.

A little background: This Film looks at how the rating system functions, specifically at how some types of content are treated differently by the MPAA. Dick feels that the MPAA is full of—surprise—double standards, especially when it comes to how they treat graphic violence vs. sexual content, heterosexual vs. homosexual sex, and big-studio vs. independent films. As part of the documentary's creation, Dick trailed and identified some of the previously anonymous members of the ratings board. Dick's conduct became a cause for concern for both the MPAA and its employees, leading to their calling the police on some occasions.

According to Mark Lemley, a professor at the Stanford Law School, the MPAA may have been within its rights to make copies of the film. Given that the MPAA's intent isn't financial gain and that the whole situation may rise above the level of trading barbs through the media into legal action, making a copy may be justified. Personally, I can't see any justification for an organization such as the MPAA ignoring a directive from a copyright owner, but IANAL. A "digital version" of the movie was submitted for screening, according to Dick's attorney, Michael Donaldson. If that digital version turns out to be a DVD, the MPAA could also find itself in hot water for violating the DMCA. Oh, the irony! Either way, the MPAA can't be happy about being put into a position where they are forced to justify the same actions they decry when undertaken by a consumer.

It's difficult to see how This Film Is Not Yet Rated—which ended up with an NC-17 rating for graphic sexual content—is being harmed. If nothing else, Dick is reaping a bountiful crop of free publicity on the eve of the Sundance Film Festival. The MPAA's decision to make copies of the film without the copyright-holder's permission reinforces the documentary's message that the MPAA's actions often reek of self-interest and hypocrisy


Hang them!!!!

firstaid

I think Hanover Fiste had it about right (referring to the MPAA).

Hanover Fiste; Heavy Metal (1981)

lol.. good one

With the $$$ influence $$$ they have , they can afford to be a hypocrite , everyone already hates them so whats the difference ..

Thats Ironic

None bellow so loud as those that doeth the sin that they decry.

What? You say there is a putrid case of hypocrisy on the part of the MPAA? Color me surprised (NOT)!

In defense of the MPAA and numerous other organized criminal cadres here in the USA and elsewhere, I present the Top Ten Reasons the MPAA could not have violated their own copyright law:

10) "Perish the thought!"

9) "C'est impossible!" [Ed. -- French -- "That's impossible!"]

8) "No, they would NEVER DO THAT!!!"

7) "I am a victim of mistaken identity!"

6) "I was a victim of SOIK-UM-STANCE!" [Ed. -- courtesy of Gerome "Curley" Howard]

5) "The butler did it."

4) "Methinks yon Cassius hath a lean and hungry look..." [Ed. -- from "Julius Caesar", by William Shakespeare]

3) "Lizzy Borden took an Axe..."

2) "It must have been two other guys..."

1) "I know because I saw him: it was the one-armed man!"

...Apologies to David Letterman -- these shit-holes don't deserve the respect of a Top Ten List; the Top Ten Lists are actually funny!!!


LOL!!!


EAT SHIT AND BARK AT THE MOON, MPAA!

I HOPE YOU LIKE FORCED ANAL SEX, MPAA BOARD MEMBERS, BECAUSE WHERE YOU'RE GOING, YOU'RE GOING TO EXPERIENCE IT 'UP-CLOSE-AND-PERSONAL '!!!!

IT COULDN'T HAVE HAPPENED TO A NICER BUNCH OF ASS-CLOWNS!!!


...if I think of anything more to add, I'll make another post, In the meantime, laugh at this situation until you fracture a rib!!! I know I will!!!



Odysseus19

im amazed this forum hasnt got a language filter & u got away from mods attention when u were able to use the words anal & sex together as well as others.

hmm? interesting....

Hi, "Pirate_Hunter".

I am sorry if some of the language in my post was offensive to you -- or to others.

FYI -- as soon as I posted it, I PM'ed the Admin who started the topic, "firstaid", and asked that the post be checked for excessive and/or abusive language. That either has not yet happened, or it may be considered as OK once in a while...

I don't know.

If you suddenly notice that I do not post to this board any longer, that may just be your answer. If nothing happens, then...

At any rate, the purpose of the use of the harsh language here was clearly to mount a much-deserved juvenalian satirical attack on the MPAA and its hypocritical "do what we say, not what we do" attitude. From my point of view, people of this ilk -- George W. "Bushwhacker", "Dick" Cheney, MPAA, RIAA, etc. -- all can be grouped together in the same cesspool. "From s%$# thou art, and unto s%$# thou shalt return..."

Some people are bound to be offended by such strong opinions. I personally don't spend much time worrying about that.

My advice to you is to either let it slide (always better for you to do this -- if you don''t let it bother you excessively, it will just go away), or "raise a stink" if you are overtly offended .

Should other board staff decide that I should be banned, oh, well...

I am not sure what is going on with our forum spam filter Pirate_Hunter, but odysseus19 did pm me as he says. If you find this to untastefull I guess we could do something about it.

Take a look at our spam filter and what it did to me, the guy quotes me and in the quote says that i said soon to be a dead spammer. lol, with that kind of filter I think we are better off without one.

http://www.bluetack.co.uk/forums/index.php...amp;#entry77817

I have said some pretty bad things on this forum as well, but I usually end up changing them when I come down from the moment.

firstaid