MPAA is accused of piracy for unauthorised copying of a movie

I just posted the article MPAA is accused of piracy for unauthorised copying of a movie.

  The  Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) is the most notorious for fighting  movie piracy and even their website makes it clear that making copies of motion  pictures without the...
Read the full article here:  [http://www.cdfreaks.com/news/11422-MPAA-is-accused-of-piracy-for-unauthorised-copying-of-a-movie.html](http://www.cdfreaks.com/news/11422-MPAA-is-accused-of-piracy-for-unauthorised-copying-of-a-movie.html)

Feel free to add your comments below. 

Please note that the reactions from the complete site will be synched below.

bunch of n00bs tbh

“They also say that they are entitled to make a copy without authorisation as they are not selling its copies for commercial gain”. thats ludicrous!

GOTCHA! " They also say that they are entitled to make a copy without authorisation as they are not selling its copies for commercial gain." That has to be quote of the year! After that statement surely they must HAVE to prove people have made money before they can sue them. Piracy is a crime,but making copies to watch with no commercial gain must be legal. I so hope this guys lawyers pursue this so we can either watch copies as long as no profit is made,or to see the MPAA get sued for what it is fighting. Double standards of what.

Yeah serve them 20,000 lawsuits and see how they like it !!!:g

This should be sent to every Senator and Congressman and ask them why the MPAA can make copies “for their own use” but no one else can.

I wonder if they used 321 Studios software :d

Just to be on the correct side, no where in the article does it say “That they are entitled to make a copy without authorization as they are not selling its copies for commercial gain”. The author of this post here took things out of context. The original article says that “It helps that MPAA is not copying the movie for commercial gain” and refers to their legal standing. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not a fan of MPAA, but we should keep things straight in here.

Classic…

Perhaps the MPAA’s efforts to “educate” the public have been misguided. It never hurts to wash your own dirty underpants before parading around public like a saint. Using the traditional MPAA logic, it is impossible that this could have been a mistake. Sue the bastards!!! *roars

reading it in context does not change anything. They made a copy without concent. they broke the law. Sue them there should be a class-action suite against them. If the MPAA can copy something for their own private use, then so can I. I, once again, have the right to copy anything I own for my personal use. MPAA has just removed any excuse for copy protection.

i think reading into context does change things. everyone here always speaks on how MPAA and RIAA is biased in their articles, and yet we chose to alter things to make our point here… if you wanna cry foul, play a fair game… a game with some really stupid rules, but still…

Thanks for the correction shuma02 !

Using the traditional MPAA logic, it is impossible that this could have been a mistake. LOL !!! :S

“If you wanna cry foul, play a fair game” Exactly why context does not matter in this case. The MPAA is trying to say that they can do something illegal, but I can’t, by stating that is was for non-comercial use after the copy was made against the statement of the copyright holder. But it is okay because they are the MPAA. According to them all copies are illegal, even the “fair use” copies.

what wrong with us downloading movies then if its not for commercial gain, yet we get sued for that. i really hope the mpaa gets sued, will be great for their image :)))

Lol, they hit (their) back…

This is a single case (there may be others) but lets not launch the lynch mob just yet. If they read this stuff and im sure they do they are still laughing all the way to the bank. Kind of like a protest march with signs, they might look out the window but only because they are more worried about somebody messing up the lawn. This will fall on deaf ears as usual but stop buying their products until things change. They can’t hold out forever. Every time somebody says this it’s like talking to a rock next to the road. Hey do what you want and ill continue to do what I want to. But there ain’t no DRM here where im sitting

Well you’re absolutly right “this is a single case”. But it’s funny and kind of proves what we’ve been thinking for a long time. I like it :slight_smile: But we’ve been beating around the bush… this is, to put it in a nutshell, a perfect example for an act of hyporisy or “double standard”. This is always the case in our society when it’s David vs. Goliath. Think of it as the tip of the iceberg. And yes they are lauphing… sadly we can only do little. It’s a vicious circle of our money making them stronger so they can use it against us. my two cents

One thing that everyone’s missing is that there was probably no DRM encoding on the DVD given to the MPAA to review. Therefore, they cannot be accused of breaking the DMCA law. This is why the MPAA has taken out 321 Studios and others, their software broke the DMCA law by removing DRM protections. NOT saying I agree with the MPAA ( :r ), but in all fairness, they probably did a simple copy and did not have to bypass CSS to do it. The fact that the filmmaker requested in writing that the MPAA make no copies without asking permission first, however, violates the owner’s copyright and is entirely punishable, IMHO.:B