NatrlBornThrllr

http://www.latimes.com/business/cust...o&track=widget

SUNDANCE FILM FESTIVAL
MPAA finds itself accused of piracy
By John Horn, Times Staff Writer

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."

PopcornTreeCt

Wow. I don't who is worse the MPAA or RIAA. The MPAA doesn't even have any power but they act like they run the movie business. I hope for a day when the movie studios collectively start supporting "Unrated" DVDs and just skip out on the MPAA.

Numanoid

There is a special place in Hell for hypocrites.

Slowpc

Humm.... tisk tisk.

reverie

Highly amusing! The film sounds interesting (the grab for publicity worked!).

Malticor

This doesn't look to me like piracy. If the MPAA believes that this filmmaker might have violated the privacy rights of its members, then I have no problem with them making a copy for evidentiary purposes. That's not piracy. That's not what the MPAA is fighting. To say the MPAA is hypocritical over this is equivocation of an absurd order.

What I don't understand is this filmmaker's beef with the "accountability" of the MPAA ratings board. They are accountable: to filmmakers who submit their work to be rated, to theater owners who exhibit that work and to the public who goes to see it. The ratings are only meaningful so long as they are of value to those interest groups. To whom else should they be accountable?

Numanoid

What? So they THINK that the film documents something inappropriate and that gives them the right to illegally make a copy? Can you please cite the law that gives them that right?

AnonomusBob15

I don't see what the big deal is. It is nothing but a publicity stunt and surely the outcome of this wouldn't be harsh. I do see the MPAA's side to this. While that might not have been the case, they could use it as a defense.

Joe Molotov

Well, I don't know about you, but I was very offended by Star Wars Episode III so I made a copy of it just in case I needed to use it as evidence in court that it had emotionally traumatized me. Some of my friends were also traumatized by it, so I made them a copy too for only a nominal $5 duplication fee.

cultshock

I think unrated DVDs are not really a problem at this point (does Walmart in the US carry them now? In Canada they do). The issue is all the pussy movie theatres and advertisers that refuse to deal with unrated (or NC-17) films. But as theatrical distribution seems to become a little less relevent to the film industry with each passing year, and unrated DVDs become more commonplace, I think the days of studios cutting a film just to get an R rating will be over. Ratings will still be important as a guide for parents, etc. but the practice of "self-censoring" films just to avoid the dreaded NC-17 can finally stop. Oops, didn't mean to stray a bit off topic.

Malticor

First, the issue here is whether the copying was actually illegal, so asking "What gives them the right to make illegal copies?" is begging the question. Second, not all copying is piracy. There's such a thing as "fair use" under copyright law (or there used to be until the DMCA anyway,) and this appears to be a legitimate case of fair use according to the article:
Lastly, I might reasonably ask, "Can you please cite the law that forbids them that right?"

pro-bassoonist

The mere fact that they assumed something and proceeded with action which clearly goes against the creator's will is a good enough for me reason to doubt the validity of their motives. Furthermore, the hypocrite-esque mentality of this organization which acts based on the same principles, or lack there of, being used in this case to determine what is morally suitable for US audiences makes me shake my head in disbelief. A typical case of rule-bending…regardless of how minor it appears!!

Ciao,
Pro-B

Julie Walker

This documentary has me interested to say the least. I always thought a documentary on this issue would be a great idea. And it looks like someone beat me to it

Maxflier

They do. Maybe not all of them, but they do carry them.

Qui Gon Jim

If the MPAA had their way, there would be no "fair use." Hypocrites.

PopcornTreeCt

Yeah, I really hope that happens.

rw2516

The MPAA is needed to keep the government out of the movie making business. There is a long history of Congress getting all up-in-arms over an industry's practices and holding the "if you don't take care of it, we will" type of hearings.
The earliest one I know of is comic books in the 1950s. A fella by the name of Fredric Wertham wrote a book called Seduction of the Innocent which described how the gore, bondage, cannibalism, drug use of comic books was having a bad effect on our kiddies. He particularly picked on EC Comics(Tales From the Crypt). Some congressman's wife, or whatever, read the book, and the next thing you know congress is holding hearings on the contents of comic books. In order to prevent government oversight(censorship) the comic book companies agreed to regulate(censor) themselves. The Comics Code Authority was created.
In 1967 some congressman took his kids to see Bonnie and Clyde. Outraged over the violence his kids were exposed to he got congressional hearings started on the sex and violence in movies. In order to keep government(censorship) out of the movie business, Jack Valenti(sp?) I believe, came up with the idea of movie ratings which allowed the industry to monitor itself.
This scenario has popped up several times since always being resolved with the industry agreeing to regulate itself with some kind of rating/advisory system. The two most notable are the warning stickers on cds(remember Frank Zappa testifying before congress) and the tv ratings.
Regardless of what you think of the ratings board, it is far preferable to some agency of the federal government.

Julie Walker

I agree..and at the very least. We are allowed unrated/unMPAA approved releases on home video. You can not say the same for some other countries like the U.K. for example. Where IF a film is cut by the review board since it doesn't fit in their guidlines(such as 'sexual violence')...it remains cut even if it has an adult rating. And nothing can be released without BBFC approval over there or you face prison time!


I'd rather we not become like that.

NatrlBornThrllr

Did you read the article?

Furthermore, their entire justification for their act was one of mere assumption. If you don't see the blatant hypocrisy here, I don't know what to tell you..

-JP

BigDan

I'd be interested to know whether the digital copy provided by Dick that was copied contained any kind of copy protection on it that the MPAA broke in order to make the copy.

Also, it would seem to me that the MPAA wouldn't have standing to sue for invasion of privacy. The individual members whose privacy was allegedly violated would be who would have to bring the suit as individuals. But what standing does the MPAA have?

kms_md

additionally, if the MPAA (or board member) thinks a law has been broken or that an actionable offense has occurred, there are avenues to pursue obtaining a legal copy of the film. can they say subpoena? to hold others to a standard they are unwilling to mainatain for themselves is both unreasonable and hypocritical.

Malticor

I don't know what assumption you're referring to here.

I will grant you that the MPAA has never been friendly to fair use guidelines, and the text from their website reflects that. If this is the hypocrisy you are referring to, then you have a point. However, I never saw mention of fair use in this thread, except by implication in the original article, until I brought it up.

This doesn't change the fact the MPAA's website is simply wrong about all copying of copyrighted work being illegal. Piracy is illegal, but not all copying is piracy, regardless of what the MPAA chooses to think.

BigDan:
If I were subject to harassment or some other form of rights violation as a direct result of my employment, I would expect my employer to act in my defense. Otherwise, I'll take my services elsewhere.

kms_md:
I agree. Subpoena probably would have been the way to go here. That doen't necessarily make the MPAA's actions illegal or even unethical.

chemosh6969

People that share files aren't making money so I guess it helps their case

NatrlBornThrllr

Then I'm correct in assuming that you withdraw your "to say the MPAA is hypocritical over this is equivocation of an absurd order" statement? I know all about fair use (which may or may not be a legitimate defense in this case)...but my entire objection was with your notion that it's absurd to call the MPAA hypocritical in lieu of this situation. Nothing more, nothing less.

-JP

DVDude!

I, for one, don't think it's "piracy." Is it ironic that they copied the film after explicitly agreeing not to do so? Yes. And laughable.

<rant>I will continue to hate the MPAA as long as they continue to force directors and studios to butcher films to meet their guidelines and definitions of what is acceptable. Showing full frontal female nudity 20 years ago was no problem, but now it's pretty much unacceptable. Hell, even Airplane (rated PG) had boobies. It's okay to show the majority of violent content, but sexuality is taboo. Screw the MPAA.</rant>