WebProNews

Tag: MPAA

  • Google Slams MPAA For Trying To Resurrect SOPA, Censor The Internet

    Google Slams MPAA For Trying To Resurrect SOPA, Censor The Internet

    Google says it’s “deeply concerned” about reports that the MPAA has been secretly leading a campaign to revive SOPA (the Stop Online Piracy Act) and help “manufacture legal arguments” in connection with an investigation by Mississippi State Attorney General Jim Hood.

    Google is referring to the campaign as “ZombieSOPA,” and has started a campaign of its own:

    SOPA was defeated nearly three years ago in no small part thanks to widespread protest from Internet users and websites (115,000 of them).Opponents maintained that the legislation would have led to widespread censorship. According to Google, Congress received over 8 million phone calls and 4 million emails in protest of SOPA in a single day. That’s in addition to 10 million petition signatures.

    In a blog post, Google walks through some of the recent reports, and writes:

    Even though Google takes industry-leading measures in dealing with problematic content on our services, Attorney General Hood proceeded to send Google a sweeping 79-page subpoena, covering a variety of topics over which he lacks jurisdiction. The Verge reported that the MPAA and its members discussed such subpoenas and certainly knew about this subpoena’s existence before it was even sent to Google.

    Attorney General Hood told the Huffington Post earlier this week that the MPAA “has no major influence on my decision-making,” and that he “has never asked [the] MPAA a legal question” and “isn’t sure which lawyers they employ.” And yet today the Huffington Post and the Verge revealed that Attorney General Hood had numerous conversations with both MPAA staff and Jenner & Block attorneys about this matter.

    The company says it has “serious legal concerns about all of this.” It also points to a quote from the MPAA’s website about how the organization aims to preserve free speech, but is trying to censor the Internet.

    Image via Twitter

  • Google Glass Is Now Officially Banned in Theaters, Shockingly

    In oh, no shit news, commonly out-of-touch organization the Motion Picture Association of America and the National Association of Theatre Owners have updated their little rulebook, inserting language that specifically bans wearable tech like Google Glass.

    Since the MPAA and NATO have always banned possible recording devices (like cellphones) inside theaters, this can come as a shock to no one.

    Here’s the updated guideline:

    The National Association of Theatre Owners (NATO) and the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) have a long history of welcoming technological advances and recognize the strong consumer interest in smart phones and wearable “intelligent” devices. As part of our continued efforts to ensure movies are not recorded in theaters, however, we maintain a zero-tolerance policy toward using any recording device while movies are being shown. As has been our long-standing policy, all phones must be silenced and other recording devices, including wearable devices, must be turned off and put away at show time. Individuals who fail or refuse to put the recording devices away may be asked to leave. If theater managers have indications that illegal recording activity is taking place, they will alert law enforcement authorities when appropriate, who will determine what further action should be taken.

    We’ll just ignore the the absurdity of that first sentence and move on to the next. Apparently, there’s an epidemic of people recording movies with Google Glass. Also, this includes all “wearable tech” … so … the Apple Watch? Would wearing a smartwatch get you kicked out of Gone Girl?

    What about a FitBit?

    Of course, the MPAA shouldn’t even have to say this. Taking off Google Glass during a movie shouldn’t be a regulation – that’s just something a normal human being should do.

    On the one hand, the MPAA’s policy is unlikely to be properly enforced, reactionary, and ultimately unnecessary. And on the other hand, well, on the other hand rests the world’s smallest violin playing the world’s saddest song for anyone who complains about being “harassed” for wearing a camera on their face in a movie theater.

    There are no winners here. Everybody is terrible.

    Image via The Daily Show video, screenshot

  • Leslie Mann, Cameron Diaz, Kate Upton Stun on ‘The Other Woman’ Red Carpet

    Leslie Mann, Cameron Diaz, Kate Upton Stun on ‘The Other Woman’ Red Carpet

    Leslie Mann, Cameron Diaz, and Kate Upton wore distinctly different yet equally stunning gowns to the Los Angeles premiere of The Other Woman Monday night.

    The premiere for the romantic comedy, which hits theaters Friday, was held at the historical Regency Village Theatre in Westwood.

    Mann was said to have “stole the show” in a two-piece floor-length bright fuchsia and orange Monique Lhuillier ensemble and matching Oscar Tiye strappy sandal heels.

    Diaz chose basic black in the form of a short, strapless Stella McCartney gown with a plunging neckline. She added interest with a pair of Manolo Blahnik beaded ankle wrap heels.

    Former Sports Illustrated model Upton went with short and strapless too. Her gray Dolce & Gabbana minidress featured silvery flower appliques that matched her shiny silver Giuseppe Zanotti pumps.

    In The Other Woman the three strike up a comical and rather unlikely friendship after discovering they’re all sleeping with the same man. They end up conspiring against the unsuspecting philanderer who is played by Game of Thrones star Nikolaj Coster-Waldau.

    “It’s a story about female friendship. Three women become friends and don’t fight over a lying, cheating man. They realize it’s not worth it. Instead, they come to each other’s rescue and help one another through heartbreak,” Diaz said of the film.

    The Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) originally gave The Other Woman an R rating for nudity but downgraded to PG-13 after a ratings appeal.

    “I respect what the MPAA stands for,” Diaz, who attended the hearing, said. “We need guidelines, and I appreciate that. But I thought, in this instance, it wasn’t the right ruling for our film.”

    Mann’s husband Judd Apatow attended the premiere along with their daughters Maude, 15, and Iris, 11.

    A writer and producer known for his work on films such as Knocked Up and The 40-Year-Old Virgin and the hit HBO series Girls, Apatow commented on the ratings appeal and American attitudes toward nudity in movies:

    “It’s interesting because there is more violence than sex scenes in PG-13 movies released here, yet overseas, there is not [as much] tolerance for violence as there is with nudity.”

    An after party was held at the W Hotel in Westwood.

    Image via Wikimedia Commons

  • Cameron Diaz Movie Wins a PG-13 Rating in Appeal

    The Classification and Ratings Administration (CARA) of the Motion Picture Association of America has just granted the new Cameron Diaz romantic comedy The Other Woman a PG-13 rating. The film was originally labelled as R-rated for sexual content, but the 20th Century Fox-produced movie was given a more teen-friendly rating during a hearing on Thursday. No cuts to The Other Woman were necessary.

    Diaz was on hand at the rating appeals inquest in Los Angeles on Thursday, along with 20th Century Fox president of production Emma Watts. CARA’s Classification and Rating Appeals Board chairman Joan Graves represented the ratings board, and the PG-13 designation came just in time for the April 25th release of The Other Woman.

    Since the late 1990’s, the MPAA has recognized the following film ratings:

    G – General Audiences: All ages admitted. This movie contains nothing that would offend parents for viewing by children. Such films may contain only mild violence or crude humor, and may have no nudity, sex, drugs or coarse (as distinct from impolite) language.

    PG – Parental Guidance Suggested: Some material may not be suitable for children. Parents are urged to give parental guidance as the motion picture contains some material that parents might not find suitable for their pre-teenagers.

    PG-13 – Parents Strongly Cautioned: Parents are urged to be cautious as the motion picture contains some material that parents might consider inappropriate for children under 13 years.

    R – Restricted: People under 17 years may only be admitted if accompanied by a parent or guardian.

    NC-17 – Adults Only: This film is exclusively adult and people under 18 are not admitted.

    Alongside Diaz, the Nick Cassavetes-directed The Other Woman stars Leslie Mann, Kate Upton, Nikolaj Coster-Waldau, Nicki Minaj and Taylor Kinney. The plot concerns three women uniting to exact revenge on a philandering man they had all been involved with.

    Here is the trailer:

    Image via YouTube

  • Judi Dench Shines in ‘Philomena’

    Judi Dench Shines in ‘Philomena’

    Judi Dench is back on the big screen in Philomena, and critics dub her the ‘best reason‘ for seeing the new film. Part comedy, part heart wrenching emotion–Philomena showcases Dench in a way she has seldom been seen.

    Spanning the gamut from playing James Bond’s infamous M, to being known as a British theater icon, Judi Dench now shines as a little old Irish lady in Philomena–and she does so magnificently.

    Originally rated R, Philomena was recently granted a much-needed reduction to a PG-13 rating. It did, however, take a war on Harvey Weinstein’s part–waged with the MPAA, in order to reach the new rating. Initially rated R for two ‘utterances of the F-word,’ Weinstein won the war by exhibiting clips from other films that met the PG-13 criteria while including similar–if not the same–expletives.

    The L.A. Times touts Judi Dench’s performance in Philomena as ‘genius work.’

    “Judi Dench’s performance in ‘Philomena‘ is genius work, propelling the film past a rocky start and into its solid, dramatic story,” their critic writes.

    Twitter fans are chiming in on Judi Dench, her performance and her recent remarks about Philomena.

    Philomena is about a woman named Philomena Lee (played by Judi Dench) who was forced to give her son up for adoption. Many years later–after raising her family–Lee meets and befriends a BBC reporter named Martin Sixsmith (played by Steve Coogan) and sets out to find the child she named Anthony, and whom she watched from a convent window as he was carried away by an American couple–sold for 1000 pounds.

    Lest viewers fear the film is too deep, do note that bits of comedy emerge from time to time, thanks to Steve Coogan, who is one of Britain’s top comics. Some believe this gets the film off to an ‘unsteady start, while others may find it somewhat comforting–noting that the entire film won’t tear their hearts to shreds. He and Judi Dench play off one another with amazing ease.

    Philomema opened November 22nd in limited release. Hopefully it will soon open nationwide, allowing Judi Dench and her fans to see her eloquent performance.

    Image via Wikipedia

  • “James Bond” Franchise Helps Lower Philomena Rating

    Over the years, James Bond has been tasked with many objectives, most of which involve Bond stopping an evil villain from stealing something valuable or destroying the world. It appears as if Agent 007 has grown bored of his usual routine, though. In a new video released by The Weinstein Company and FunnyorDie.com, James Bond (aka Daniel Craig) has used his influence to convince M to battle against the MPAA:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t7bscyDT6tI

    So what beef does the British Secret Service have against the MPAA, a movie rating company? Recently, they had classified the movie Philomena as Rated R. According to the MPAA:

    “An R-rated motion picture, in the view of the Rating Board, contains some adult material. An R-rated motion picture may include adult themes, adult activity, hard language, intense or persistent violence, sexually-oriented nudity, drug abuse or other elements, so that parents are counseled to take this rating very seriously. Children under 17 are not allowed to attend R-rated motion pictures unaccompanied by a parent or adult guardian. Parents are strongly urged to find out more about R-rated motion pictures in determining their suitability for their children. Generally, it is not appropriate for parents to bring their young children with them to R-rated motion pictures.”

    Philomena, the latest movie by The Weinstein Company about an Irish woman (played by Judi Dench) and a journalist (played by Steve Coogan) searching for the child Dench’s character was forced to put up for adoption, had recently received an R-rating due to its two uses of the F-bomb – usages which co-writer Steve Coogan states are critical:

    “Martin’s anger at the end, where he swears at this nun, has to be shocking because it has to contrast with the grace and serenity that Dame Judi as Philomena exhibits. That anger has to shock just to elevate her grace. Similarly, early on, when Martin swears about Catholics. It needs to be provocative, certainly to her, but we also see that she’s not shocked by the profanity, because she spent many years as a nurse, which is important for the audience to know.”

    Traditionally, any movie which uses the word “f*ck” receives an R-rating. However, TWC lawyer Bert Fields believes that this filter is too restricting:

    “The MPAA’s stance on language often proves itself to be too black and white, not taking into account a film’s overall subject matter. Philomena is one such instance. To put this film in the same category as sexually explicit and violent films would have been a disservice not only to the film but audiences as well…”

    And hence The Weinstein Company took the MPAA to court to sue for a reduced rating for the movie. Along with the legal effort, TWC released the FunnyorDie video (which has seemingly been removed…) in which Judi Dench reprises her role as M and gives an order to Agent 002 (Coogan) to “have a word with” the MPAA and persuade them to change the rating.

    Surprisingly for TWC (which has had several complaints surroundings its movies ratings before), this tactic worked and the MPAA lowered the rating of Philomena to PG-13. At the end of the day, Harvey Weinstein voiced how integral James Bond was in securing the victory:

    “We owe this victory to Barbara Broccoli, producer of the James Bond series, Daniel Craig, and Sam Mendes, who because of their relationship with Judi Dench, gave permission to spoof the ratings system using the M character. We know that went a long way into shedding light on the themes of the movie and the fact that the PG-13 rating was correct. We are glad the MPAA has a good sense of humor and with the cooperation of Barbara and her team, it was proven once again no one does it better than James Bond.”

    All of this leaves one wondering what is next on the plate for Bonds? Will we now use his services to fight all the good fights, such as taking up the mantle against CISPA or perhaps even overturning the legislation that makes cell phone unlocking illegal in the US? Whatever the issue, it appears that it is safe to state, “In Bond We Trust.”

    Image via YouTube

  • New Anti-Piracy Plan: Kindergarten Copyright Class?

    The United States’ largest copyright lobbies, the Motion Picture Association of America and the Recording Industry Association of America, have initiated a highly controversial program nudging the educational system to shoulder the burden of teaching kids about how evil piracy really is.

    The LA Times reports that a nonprofit group known as the Center for Copyright Information has commissioned a program to teach kids between kindergarten and sixth grade about intellectual property ownership.

    The program is to be called “Be a Creator,” and the proposed curriculum includes lesson plans, videos, and activities that promote “being creative and protecting creativity” with topics like: Respect the Person: Give Credit; It’s Great to Create; and Copyright Matters.

    The president of a nonprofit organization (iKeepSafe) that focuses on helping keep kids safe on the internet, Marsali Hancock, defended the program by saying “It’s important to prepare children to succeed and thrive and learn how to share and create and move files in a way that’s ethical and responsible.”

    Even though nothing of the plan has even been written yet, the idea of implementing it has come under intense scrutiny. Frank Wells, a spokesman for the California Teachers Association, said “While it’s certainly a worthy topic of discussion with students, I’m sure some teachers would have a concern that adding anything of any real length to an already packed school day would take away from the basic curriculum that they’re trying to get through now.”

    In one curriculum draft acquired by Wired a couple months ago, a property attorney described the information being disseminated as “thinly disguised propaganda” because the program omits any mention of the concept of Fair Usage, such as satire, parody, or commentary.

    Corynne McSherry, the intellectual property director for the Electronic Frontier Foundation, said “It sends the message that you always have to get permission before you can copy anything and that sharing is always theft and that if you violate copyright law all kinds of bad things will happen to you. It’s a scare tactic.”

    Stephen Smith, a managing partner with Greenberg Glusker and an expert on copyright law, said “The idea that time would be taken out of kids’ days to teach them copyright law, when they ought to be learning reading, writing and arithmetic, I find to be strange… I just don’t think it’s appropriate curriculum for kindergartners to sixth-graders.”

    Meanwhile, in spite of the MPAA’s constant whinging about immense profit losses caused by online piracy, recently conducted economics studies suggested that their “losses” are sensationally inflated and that the music and film industries are fiscally performing better than ever.

    [Image via ThinkStock]

  • IsoHunt Is Back From The Dead… Sort Of

    IsoHunt Is Back From The Dead… Sort Of

    Earlier this month, IsoHunt, one of the world’s largest torrent trackers, shut down after settling a seven year lawsuit with the MPAA. There were efforts to archive all of IsoHunt upon the news, but founder Gary Fung killed the site earlier than planned to thwart those efforts. Now an entirely new team has resurrected the site in its entirety.

    TorrentFreak reports that a carbon copy of IsoHunt is now online at isohunt.to. The new site has nothing to do with the original site as it was brought back by a team that feels the site was a “file-sharing icon.” The team confirmed just as much in a post on the new IsoHunt under the title of “IsoHunt is back!”

    Hey everyone! IsoHunt is back online! It’s the same old isoHunt from the outside but very different from the inside. We have nothing in common with the isoHunt Inc. that made the original website. We proudly copied it and are happy to share. Isn’t that what we’re all here for?

    Feel free to search and download torrents like you used to. We’ll try to bring some of the old features back so we can recreate everything together.

    So, how similar is the new IsoHunt compared to the one one? The team behind it tells TorrentFreak that they have rescued about 75 percent of the original IsoHunt’s torrent database, and that they’re trying to bring more back online. They also might be able to bring back user comments, but it looks like the forums and user profiles will not be coming back.

    The death of IsoHunt was a big win for the MPAA in its tireless crusade to remove all file-sharing sites from the Internet, but its return is a powerful reminder that the the Internet doesn’t tolerate forced censorship. Even if what the site is doing is deemed illegal by the justice system, somebody on the Internet will ensure that it survives. That has happened here and it will happen again if the MPAA forces this new version of IsoHunt to shut down.

    In short, we may just have a new Pirate Bay-style game of whac-a-mole here, folks.

    [Image: IsoHunt.to]

  • IsoHunt Settles With MPAA, Will Shut Down

    IsoHunt was mine, and presumably many others, first run in with torrents and file sharing. Many have moved on, but the MPAA just couldn’t leave it alone. After launching a lawsuit against the site in 2006, the site’s founder, Gary Fung, and the MPAA went back and forth in court for more than 6 years. Now it’s all over and Fung didn’t win.

    Wired reports that Fung has reached a settlement with the MPAA in which he’ll pay $110 million in damages. As part of the settlement, he is also shutting the site down for good. The site, which currently has over 13 million active torrents, isn’t down just yet, but Fung has seven days to shut it down.

    With the announcement of the settlement, MPAA chairman Chris Dodd said that bullying a file sharing site into a settlement that it can’t possibly afford is somehow a win for innovation:

    “Today’s settlement is a major step forward in realizing the enormous potential of the internet as a platform for legitimate commerce and innovation. It also sends a strong message that those who build businesses around encouraging, enabling, and helping others to commit copyright infringement are themselves infringers, and will be held accountable for their illegal actions.”

    Now, I’m not saying that piracy is innovation, but Dodd’s statement is like the pot calling the kettle black. The MPAA chairman singing the praises of the Internet as a bastion of innovation for the film industry is disingenuous as the group he oversees has done everything in its power to resist the future that file sharing gave users in instant gratification.

    In fact, a study from earlier this week found that the film industry is to blame for piracy, not file-sharing sites. Out of the top 10 most pirated films over the last three weeks, not a single one was available via a legal streaming service. Consumers demand instant gratification in the Internet era, and streaming is the easiest way to deliver that. Sure, some new films are available for digital purchase, but the hoops one has to jump through to purchase and watch said films make piracy the much more appealing option.

    I’m not saying all this to defend IsoHunt, nor do I defend other file sharing sites like The Pirate Bay. What I do defend is the consumer, and the MPAA alongside other other copyright maximalist groups are doing the consumer no favors by going after file sharing sites. All their doing is desperately clinging to a business model that should have died over a decade ago. If they really cared about innovation, they would have fully embraced services like Netflix while reaching out to their biggest fans who usually happen to also be the biggest pirates.

    Oh, and as for Fung’s next move, he has submitted a petition for Writ of Certiorari to the Supreme Court. If it ends up like other file sharing cases, the SCOTUS will kick it back to the lower courts. We might get lucky, however, as Fung feels that IsoHunt is a search engine and that this ruling will affect services like Google and Bing as well.

    [Image: isohunt/Facebook]

  • The MPAA, RIAA Target Google Again

    By now, it’s pretty clear the governing bodies behind the entertainment industry will not be happy unless Google turns over their search engine index over to the RIAA and the MPAA, allowing them to remove whatever infringing content they see fit. With that in mind, imagine using a search engine that’s been sanitized by these entities. Every first-page result would be geared toward directing users to sites where they can spend money on entertainment content, and YouTube would probably be demoted to results pages that normally go unseen by the public.

    The latest misguided attempt to blame Google for not singlehandedly eliminating piracy from the world, thanks to the power of their infringement enabling search engine. As pointed out by TechDirt, the latest attack comes in the form of a two-pronged approach by the MPAA and the RIAA.

    The MPAA’s salvo comes in the form of a new study, one that appears to have doubters within the study itself. While the results haven’t been made public, TechDirt has apparently seen it, and offers the following criticism:

    Amusingly, even the MPAA’s own “talking points” on the study (which a friendly bird in Congress passed along) more or less admit that the study is incredibly weak.

    Without seeing these statements, confirmation of their intent is impossible, but further data in the study certainly gives that point of view legs to stand on:

    The key number, which the MPAA does its best to bury is that search engines “influenced” only 20% of the times when consumers accessed infringing content.

    So the very search engine the MPAA is railing against only influences 20 percent of Internet piracy? If these are truly the results of the MPAA’s study, one would think they would alter their approach. Alas, no. The MPAA appears as if its prepared to go down with this sinking ship, something the following quote from the aforementioned talking points reveals quite clearly:

    Search engines bear a huge responsibility for introducing people to infringing content.

    The MPAA’s study falls further on its face when it contradicts itself with the following revelation:

    Take Google’s algorithm change as an example — they held this up last summer as a step that would have meaningful impact and unfortunately we see in the data here that it hasn’t.

    So even after Google implemented the changes suggested by these entities, it didn’t completely eliminate infringing sites from Google’s index; and this is somehow Google’s fault, even though they complied with the suggested algorithm alterations? And then there’s the Google transparency report system that removes infringing content on a regular basis. Nevertheless, that’s not enough for the MPAA, and so, they commissioned another “Piracy will destroy everything” study.

    As for the RIAA’s attempt to pin the tale on Google, they went before Congress to seemingly single Google out. The statement that stood out, as highlighted by TechDirt:

    If ISPs can be considered the gateway by users to rogue sites online, search engines may be considered the roadmaps or, more directly, the turn-by-turn directions and door-to-door service to these sites. There can be no doubt that search engines play a considerable role in leading users to illicit services and can be a key part of addressing infringing activity online.

    Actually, as the MPAA study shows, there can be plenty of doubt; unless, of course, 20 percent is really something to waste the public’s time over. In other news, who knew music piracy was still a thing?

    [Lead image courtesy]

  • SOPA And PIPA Are Not Coming Back

    SOPA And PIPA Are Not Coming Back

    SOPA and PIPA were a major threat to the Internet. Only those in the entertainment industry denied the claim as they pushed for stricter control of the Internet. The two bills eventually spurred the single largest Internet protest as countless Web sites, including Wikipedia, went dark. The bills were soundly defeated, but do they ever have a chance of coming back?

    MPAA CEO Chris Dodd was a speaker at San Francisco’s Commonwealth Club on Tuesday night where he spoke at length about SOPA, PIPA, and what Hollywood’s doing to help combat piracy. He also spoke at length with Wired after the talk to further clarify what he thought about the Internet movement against the two anti-piracy bills from earlier this year, and other subjects.

    First of all, Dodd was adamant that SOPA and PIPA are dead. During his interview with Wired, he said that the “legislation is gone. It’s over.” He did say this was his own opinion though. Lawmakers could introduce a similar bill next year.

    As for the Internet’s reaction and subsequent protest, he said that he’s never seen a bigger protest to proposed bills in his life. He also said that the protest “changed forever how people are going to address their elected representatives.” He even went on to call it a “transformative event.”

    After the talk, Dodd provided some more details on the secretive six-strike policy that the MPAA and ISPs are implementing across the country. He says that Internet users will not receive any kind of punishment for the first three offenses, but will be subject to various “mitigation measures” after their fourth offense. These include speed throttling and redirects, but it’s still unclear if ISPs can cut off service altogether for repeat offenders.

    On a final note, it seems that Dodd is ready to start working with the tech sector instead of pushing through ill-conceived legislation. He said that he’s not interested in pursuing a legislative solution, but rather teaming up with the tech industry to educate consumers about piracy and its effects on the marketplace. The fruits of Dodd’s labor can already be seen in Google’s recent algorithm update that adds copyright removal notices to their ranking signals.

  • Don’t Expect To Get Your Megaupload Data Back Anytime Soon

    Collateral damage is unavoidable in war. A good general tries to keep this to a minimum, however, as the people who have no stake in the fight can only suffer. It seems that those waging the war on piracy didn’t get that memo when they took down Megaupload in January.

    The curious case of Megaupload has seen its ups and downs since the beginning, but one thing has remained constant. Users have been repeatedly screwed over in regards to getting their data back. The MPAA, RIAA and the U.S. government all believe that Megaupload was only used for nefarious purposes, and use that line whenever Megaupload argues to have its user’s data returned. The MPAA was actually fine with users getting their data back, but they wanted everybody to play by their own restrictive rules.

    The EFF has been fighting this whole time to have users’ data returned to them after the case of Kyle Goodwin came to light. Goodwin lost his entire business when Megaupload was taken down. There are others who have similar stories. That’s why the judge in the case, Liam O’Grady, wanted all interested parties to work out a deal. No such deal has been struck and users are still stuck without having any access to the data that, in some cases, they may desperately need.

    The only option now is to take the case back to Judge O’Grady. EFF attorney Julie Samuels told TorrentFreak that O’Grady has been slow with a response to their request. In the past, O’Grady has proven that he doesn’t want to make a ruling on the case, but rather favors all parties coming to an agreement. If Apple and Samsung can’t come to an agreement on patents; there’s little to no chance of the MPAA agreeing with the EFF.

    It’s hard to say when O’Grady will come to a decision. He may just send everybody back to the drawing room again to come up with an agreement. Here’s hoping that he actually makes a definitive statement on this case instead of leaving it up to the separate parties to agree on a deal.

    As for Kim Dotcom, here’s his feelings on the matter:

  • Former MPAA CTO Changes His Mind On SOPA

    Former MPAA CTO Changes His Mind On SOPA

    SOPA is dead, and it’s probably not coming back. The MPAA now realizes that a bill like that just isn’t going to fly. They need to be sneakier and use methods that bypass public scrutiny – like TPP. That being said, SOPA is still on the minds of many people as one of the few things that has ever come close to destroying the Internet as we know it.

    One figure who is still thinking about SOPA is Paul Brigner, former Chief Technology Officer for the MPAA. He was CTO for the group while SOPA was being debated and ultimately killed by the largest online protest movement in the history of mankind. During that time, he defended SOPA and said it was a good way to stop online piracy.

    It seems that in the seven months since SOPA has been dead, Brigner has had a change of heart. He’s now working for the Internet Society, a group that was part of the protest movement against SOPA. Being with the group has apparently changed his mind on the matter. He even wrote a letter to the White House explaining why the Internet is so important:

    We are also of the opinion that any enforcement attempts – at both national and international levels – should ensure and not jeopardize the stability, interoperability and efficiency of the Internet, its technologies and underlying platforms. The Internet – a network of networks – is based on an open and distributed architecture. This model should be preserved and should surpass any enforcement efforts.

    It’s nice to see some more influential people coming out against SOPA and even changing their mind on the bill. He might be a little late to the party, but it’s appreciated nonetheless. It’s especially appreciated that the letter is also meant to help shape future IP enforcement policy. It seems that Washington is actually looking for input from those “nerds” that they neglected to even acknowledge when SOPA was first being debated.

  • Kim Dotcom’s Allegations Are Pure Fantasy, Claims MPAA

    Kim Dotcom, the embattled owner of the cloud-based storage site Megaupload, said in a recent interview with TorrentFreak that Vice President Joe Biden met with a group of influential people within the movie industry to discuss the takedown of his website. This cabal included the heads of several major Hollywood studios, as well as MPAA executive Mike Ellis, who, Dotcom claims, is an expert in extradition.

    The MPAA, meanwhile, has stated that, while industry leaders did meet with Biden back in July of 2011, it was to discuss the vice president’s trip to China in August. Nothing about Kim Dotcom, Megaupload, or the illegal content the site hosted was ever discussed. Furthermore, they insisted that Ellis is not an extradition expert, regardless of what the Megaupload mastermind has claimed.

    “The purpose of this meeting with the vice president was to discuss his [then] upcoming trip to China last August and the importance of reaching a settlement, with the Chinese government, of the United States World Trade Organization complaint against China, which would increase the number of foreign films permitted into that country and provide a better share of box office revenues,” the MPAA said in a statement to CNET. “The eventual agreement announced in February was a major step forward in spurring the growth of U.S. exports to China, and was tremendous news for the millions of American workers and businesses whose jobs depend on the entertainment industry.”

    However, someone using the screen name “mrkimdotcom” posted a rebuttal to the MPAA’s claim that Ellis isn’t an expert in extradition. Citing a website called ScreenSingapore, the individual posted the following revelation:

    Ellis joined the MPA from the litigation department of the international law firm Herbert Smith, and is a lawyer qualified in Hong Kong, England and Wales. Prior to this, he had a distinguished career in law enforcement that spanned two decades over which he served first in the British Police and then the Royal Hong Kong Police. There, he spent six years with the Commercial Crime Bureau focusing on trans-national fraud and extradition requests. He ultimately rose to the rank of Superintendent.

    So who’s telling the truth? Is it the MPAA, who will say or do anything to protect itself and the studios it represents? Or is it Dotcom, who will say or do anything to avoid being extradited to the United States to face charges of copyright violation? I’m sure more interesting arguments from both sides of the fence will be tossed around before this situation is resolved.

  • YouTube Users File Petition To Allow For The Use Of Third-Party Recording Tools

    Should YouTube users be allowed to rip the content they like to their hard drive, much like a person would use a DVR to record a television show of interest? Some users believe they should have such capabilities, and so, they’ve started a petition essentially asking for DVR rights when using YouTube.

    The petition comes on the heels of the announcement that Google is going after the video-to-mp3 conversion site with the obvious title, YouTube-MP3.com, something that’s reflected in the petition’s introduction:

    For decades people were allowed to take a private copy of a public broadcast. You could record the radio program with a cassette recorder or make a copy of your favorite movie by using a video recorder. All these techniques have been opposed heavily in its early years by the big media companies who didn’t want the public to have such technology. They did describe such technology as criminal and as a threat to their business.

    Several years later history is about to repeat: Google has teamed up with the RIAA to make the same claims against all sorts of online recording tools for their 21th century broadcasting service: YouTube (“Broadcast yourself”). Google is taking action against nearly every service that enables its users to create a private copy of a public YouTube broadcast while the RIAA is threatening news media like CNet for promoting such a software.

    I hereby ask Google to break their silence and participate in an open and fair discussion with the intention to find a solution that suits the needs of the users.

    It should be noted that while consumers could tape music from the radio or make duplicates of other tapes with a dual-cassette setup, it wasn’t necessarily smiled upon by the powers that were. In fact, the MPAA went all out against the technology that was videocassette recorders (VCRs). The difference being, media consumption in the 80s was very much a one-way process, with the consumer having little recourse regarding feedback. Sure, an occasional letter might have made capitalism work in your favor, but there certainly weren’t multiple avenues of communication like those offered by Facebook and Twitter.

    With that in mind, should users be able to make copies of YouTube content, be it in the form of third part video recording software or through sites that rip the video’s soundtrack out, converting it to an MP3? While the comparison between DVRs and Internet broadcasts are based in logic, it’s impossible to see the current powers that be siding with the user here, especially when you consider the massive fuss these content providers have made about YouTube in the past. Perhaps a balance could be struck allowing users who upload their own self-created content to give their viewers the option of downloading the file.

    Other than that, it’s hard to see a day that the RIAA says “sure, you can download any of the music you like from YouTube’s VEVO service, unless the song was purchased by the viewer first. As pointed out by GigaOm, the petition has over 180,000 signatures since it was put up three days prior. While the support is admirable, it’s hard to see this working out in their favor.

  • Megaupload Lawyer Not Buying MPAA’s Sympathy

    In a rather surprising turn of events, the MPAA submitted a document to the court yesterday saying that they would be fine with legitimate Megaupload users getting their data back. The organization had previously said they wanted the data to be retained so they could bring lawsuits against groups using the site to illegally distribute movies. Some people probably thought the MPAA was just blowing hot air and Megaupload’s lawyer couldn’t agree more.

    Speaking to CNET, Ira Rothken described the MPAA’s “sympathetic” gesture as just “posturing.” He says that the MPAA’s request to have the files filtered and only legitimate files returned is impossible. The current digital landscape makes it nearly impossible to distinguish a legitimate film download from a pirated copy. Couple that with the assumption that some people used Megaupload to store legitimate copies of their films and you have an indecipherable mess.

    Rothken sees this impossibility as their chance. The U.S. government, the MPAA and other groups accuse Megaupload of being a haven of piracy and copyright infringement. If you can’t tell the difference between a pirated and legitimate copy of a film, how do you know if Megaupload was the piracy haven that these groups claim it to be? The only way you could do it is by issuing subpoenas to every Megaupload user around the world and that’s just impossible.

    Like many, including Rothken and yours truly, are suggesting, the MPAA is just using this as a way to promote themselves as no longer being the bad guy. They need to prove that they’re a friend of the Internet after the SOPA debacle. Saying that they’re totally okay with Megaupload users getting their files back would build a lot of good will, but only among those who don’t know how insurmountable of a task that actually is.

    It’s also important to remember that the MPAA didn’t even issue their support for Megaupload users getting their data back. They just said that they were fine with it if the court were to issue such an order. In essence, the MPAA is being a slacktivist. They’re fine with the cause, but they don’t want to lift a finger to actually help in the process. If they were really behind people getting their files back, they would be using their considerable weight in the court system to get something done.

    In the end, it’s just another weird instance to come out of the Megaupload saga. We’ll keep you up to date on any further developments, including the potential for all charges against them to be dropped. It’s a long-shot, but Dotcom and Rothken are confident in their ability to beat the United States.

  • The Pirate Bay Wants To Thank The RIAA For Censorship

    It’s no secret that the RIAA and the MPAA want Google and other search engines to stop listing sites like The Pirate Bay in their search results. The main problem is that Google makes it super easy to find pirated content online. Sure, just typing in a band name will return legitimate sources, but just add on The Pirate Bay to the search and BAM! – instant piracy.

    It’s that problem that has the RIAA so angry about Google and other search engines. People can still use Google to find this content and it’s just so infuriating for content owners. Well, the RIAA has an ally in wanting to censor search engines – The Pirate Bay. Wait, what?

    You heard that right, folks. The Pirate Bay would love nothing more than for Google, Bing and others to filter out their search results so that The Pirate Bay would never be listed again. Isn’t that a bad thing for the torrent tracker though? According to The Pirate Bay, only 10 percent of their traffic comes from these “competing search engines.” That’s not a lot, but why are they competing?

    The Pirate Bay fancies itself as being the most comprehensive media search engine on the Web. If Google and others were forced to remove The Pirate Bay from their results, that would leave only The Pirate Bay getting all that search traffic for media. Ten percent of 30 million users is still a lot and they would now be providing The Pirate Bay with direct searches.

    It’s pretty hard to argue with that kind of logic. Countless people numbering in the millions probably have The Pirate Bay bookmarked and visit it frequently. Policies that the copyright industries tries to push through only serves to help sites like The Pirate Bay.

    The Pirate Bay as they are wont to do issued their thanks to the RIAA in their own special way:

    So from the bottom of our hearts, THANK YOU RIAA, this is great news for us! For once, we support your efforts in something! Let’s make sure that TPB keeps on growing together!

    Hugs’n’kisses from your pals at The Pirate Bay – soon to be the biggest media search engine in the world!

    This is just the latest string in cases that finds attempts against The Pirate Bay to only prove futile, but extremely profitable for The Torrent Tracker. After being banned in the United Kingdom, The Pirate Bay saw its daily user count jump by over 10 million. The tracker also recently revealed that they have numerous IP addresses at their disposal to circumvent any and all attempts at censoring them.

    It’s moments like these that The Pirate Bay truly lives up to its mantra as “The galaxy’s most resilient BitTorrent site.”

  • MPAA “Sympathetic” To Legitimate Megaupload Users

    I can’t believe it’s been almost six months since Megaupload was taken down by the feds and Kim Dotcom was arrested for criminal copyright infringement and other horrible things. It’s been a roller coaster full of twists and turns since then, but it might all be coming to a head soon if the U.S. court throws out the case against Megaupload. Of course, legitimate users of Megaupload are still screwed over unless the court lets them access their files.

    Those legitimate users now have a friend in the MPAA. I know, I couldn’t believe it myself. In the past, the organization wanted access to Megaupload’s servers so that it could sue those who were using the service to illegally distribute films.

    In a response to Megaupload user poster boy Kyle Goodwin, the MPAA filed a motion in court that said the members are “sympathetic to legitimate users who may have relied on Megaupload to store their legitimately acquired or created data.” That seems so nice of them. I would think there would be some sort of catch or something. Oh wait, here it is:

    However, the MPAA Members’ position continues to be that if the Court is willing to consider allowing access for users such as Mr. Goodwin to allow retrieval of files, it is essential that the mechanism include a procedure that ensures that any materials the users access and copy or download are notfiles that have been illegally uploaded to their accounts, given that MPAA Members and other rights holders are certain to own the copyrights in many of the files stored on the servers.

    Apparently, the MPAA thinks that people only shared movies over Megaupload. It’s hilarious because movies would have to be split into parts on Megauplaod due to file size restrictions. Even if Megaupload was used to share movies, it would be obvious that torrents and other file sharing services with larger file caps would be more popular for such activities.

    So if the MPAA is being this nice to the regular user, are they willing to show the same sympathy to Dotcom and the other defendants. These guys need the data that’s on their servers as evidence to protect themselves. Surely the sympathetic MPAA would show the same kindess to Megaupload. Oh wait, I forgot, it’s the MPAA and they don’t like Megaupload:

    In addition, in no event should any Megaupload defendants or their representatives—who have not generally appeared in this proceeding, and who are not subject to the control and supervision of the Court—be allowed to access the Mega Servers under such a mechanism designed for the benefit of third party Megaupload users. Whether and under what conditions the Mega defendants should have access to the servers (again, assuming they are subject to the control of the Court) is a separate issue.

    So the MPAA is sympathetic to normal users and still hates Megaupload. It’s a start and oen that will hopefully play out to see legitimate users have their files returned to them. It’s good to see the MPAA perhaps turning over a new leaf. It’s like when MPAA head boss Chris Dodd said that they should stop referring to piracy as theft. Oh wait, Dodd was just saying that to push a new SOPA later on without the backlash that the first try received. It seems that the same fine print tactic is being used in this case as well:

    In short, the MPAA Members take no position on whether the Court should or should not exercise its equitable jurisdiction to respond to Mr. Goodwin’s request. Our concerncontinues to be simply that if the Court were to allow such access, steps must be taken to ensure that the unauthorized copies of copyrighted content on the Mega Servers are not allowed to enterthe stream of commerce.

    In all reality, the MPAA is just saying, “We’re cool if you want to get your files back, but we’re not going to petition for it or anything. But hey, at least we’re pals, right?” All of this just means that we’re right back where we started. The courts still have to decide on whether or not to keep the data while the MPAA makes silly demands.

    MPAA Mega Files

    [h/t: Ars Technica]

  • Chris Dodd Hints That Piracy Isn’t Theft, Still Wants SOPA

    Chris Dodd Hints That Piracy Isn’t Theft, Still Wants SOPA

    Chris Dodd has all the makings of an effective politician, if, for nothing else, his ability to talk out of both sides of his mouth. Take, for instance, his current stance on both SOPA and piracy.

    In an interview with Variety.com, Dodd revealed an interesting, change-is-possible thinking when discussing the MPAA’s approach to piracy. From his perspective, perhaps the MPAA’s wording was to harsh. In fact, he suggested a different approach regarding the mindset concerning piracy by saying:

    He said Saturday that the industry will need to take a far more nuanced approach to promoting future antipiracy legislation.

    “We’re going to have to be more subtle and consumer-oriented,” he added. “We’re on the wrong track if we describe this as thievery.”

    Now, does this mean Dodd doesn’t view piracy as theft or is this simply a change in strategy in an attempt to woo support for future editions of SOPA? Judging by the “promoting future antipiracy legislation” portion, it suggests very clearly that the war on piracy is far from over, at least from the MPAA’s perspective. It seems as if the change in the way the piracy is described is meant to suggest a softer stance towards file sharers, but it also rings as if he’s suggesting a lighter approach–not calling content pirates thieves–will garner more support from the public, and, more importantly, the tech industry.

    A quote concerning Google’s stance on SOPA demonstrates this rather well:

    But Internet companies such as Google, Facebook and Twitter campaigned effectively against the legislation, mobilizing users on grounds that the new rules would impede the free flow of information on the Internet.

    “Google chose wisely by making Hollywood the enemy,” Dodd said ruefully.

    Another thing that might help get the tech industry on board is craft future versions of SOPA in such a way that it doesn’t potentially break the Internet.

    That being said, the fact that Dodd suggests a change in the approach to piracy, while mentioning the role consumers play can be categorized as potential hope. The idea of embracing the Internet as a primary vehicle for content delivery, even first-run movies, is a step in the right direction. The Oatmeal’s take on watching Game of Thrones perfectly demonstrates the position many consumers find themselves in before resorting to file sharing.

    Who knows, maybe somebody forwarded that particular comic to Dodd’s email and he got the message. But then again, maybe he’s just trying a more subtle approach to generate support for future versions of SOPA, which remains very much on his mind:

    “I can’t say anything to [US Senators] about this for another seven months, but I think my colleagues understand how important this is,” he said.

    Just make sure you don’t call piracy theft.

  • New York Yankees Make Video To Support Bully Film

    As a Red Sox fan, it can be hard to find things to like about the New York Yankees. They are, after all, baseball’s Evil Empire, the devil in pinstripes, the perennial rival and sometime dasher-of-hopes to my beloved team. Occasionally, though, they come along and do something that earns the respect of even the most die-hard of Boston fans.

    Yesterday, New York’s YES network released a video promoting the new anti-bullying documentary, Bully. In the video, some of the Yankees’ biggest names – Derek Jeter, Mariano Rivera, Curtis Granderson, and Alex Rodriguez – talk about the serious problems bullying is creating in schools. They encouraging students to step in (safely) when they see classmates being bullied, and to always tell an adult. They also direct viewers to the Bully Project’s website. Check out the video below:

    The documentary film Bully has received a lot of attention in recent weeks. When The Weinstein Company, the production company behind the film, submitted it to the MPAA, the agency slapped it with an R-rating. TWC appealed the decision, arguing that the rating would keep many of the very kids at whom the film was aimed from seeing it. The MPAA denied the appeal, insisting that the R-rating wasn’t as big a problem as TWC argued.

    A massive petition, support from celebrities, and even a letter from Congress fell on deaf ears. After an initial unrated release at the end of March, the MPAA finally agreed to give the film an R rating if director Lee Hirsch agreed to remove three f-words.

    Here’s the official trailer for the film:

  • MPAA Versus Google, Facebook Concerning Repeat Infringer Case

    There’s an important copyright case being heard at the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals concerning DMCA and repeat infringers. Simply put, if a site owner responds to DMCA complaints and removes infringing content but does not ban the users who uploaded the content in question, is the site owner in someway liable if these users become repeat infringers?

    Google and Facebook don’t think so, but the MPAA, surprisingly, does.

    What we have is the appeal for Flava Works, Inc v. Gunter. The site in question is myVidster, owned by Marques Gunter. myVidster was, according to TorrentFreak, designed “to upload links and embed videos hosted at 3rd party sites.” Flava Works, which serves as producer and distributor of adult content, filed suit against Gunter for “failing to police his site.” Apparently, Flava Works’ gripe is not with Gunter’s responses to DMCA takedown requests. The company’s lawyers attest to the fact that Gunter did indeed remove content when called upon to do so. The problem, to Flava Works, is that Gunter did nothing to address the repeat infringers who uploaded the infringing content to his myVidster service.

    Judge John F. Grady, keeping the trend of siding with the complainants in regards to copyright infringement, agreed, upholding the claim of infringement while issuing an injunction against the site. Grady punctuated his ruling by saying Gunter should’ve done more:

    “[Gunter] removes videos from myVidster that are listed in DMCA notices, but goes no further. Beyond his mechanical response to the notices, Gunter refuses to concern himself with copyright protection…”

    Grady even went as far to say that service providers are not required to monitor their sites for infringing uploads, but the statement was finished of with a “still, he should’ve done it anyway” conclusion. Saying the judge’s ruling went way beyond the scope of DMCA, the EFF filed a dissenting amicus, indicating DMCA says nothing about site owners and their responsibility regarding repeat infringers.

    In fact, DMCA does not even define what a repeat infringer is, but yet, that didn’t stop the presiding judge to rule against the site owner. Google and Facebook championed Gunter’s cause, agreeing the ruling puts too much of a burden on site owners:

    “…imposing greater liability on Internet intermediaries for the actions of their users would have a devastating effect on investment in early-stage Internet companies.”

    From here, the MPAA joined the fray, and as one might expect, they want Gunter punished, even if that means going beyond the scope of the DMCA rules:

    “Contrary to the assertions of myVidster and amici Google and Facebook, search engines and social networking sites are not the only businesses that desire certainty in a challenging online marketplace. MPAA member companies and other producers of creative works also need a predictable legal landscape in which to operate. By advertising infringing material, refusing to terminate any of its users’ accounts, and failing to identify and stop infringers who repeatedly embedded links to unauthorized video streams and displays, myVidster did not qualify for safe-harbor protection. Given the massive and often anonymous infringement on the internet, the ability of copyright holders to hold gateways like myVidster liable for secondary infringement is crucial in preventing piracy.”

    Too bad the DMCA includes absolutely none of what the MPAA wants. What’s worse, however, is the fact that even though the DMCA doesn’t include such stipulations, the judge ruled against the defendant as if he was sending a message that repeat infringement will not be tolerated, even if the law indicates you are not required to monitor the sites you own for infringing content.

    In an effort to protect the overreaching claims of Flava Works, Judge Grady overstepped his boundaries, something the MPAA was all too eager to support.

    [Via Torrent Freak]
    [Lead image courtesy of xkcd]