average life

I was on Digg and I saw this story. It’s been a while since I’ve been on a techno-political rant, but this story is perfect for ranting.

The MPAA, the same people that brought you blanket lawsuits for anything it views as piracy (and it views a lot as piracy), turns out to be just a big pirate like the rest of us. What’s even funnier, its explanation sounds something to the effect of, “what’s the big deal?”

Here is the setup: Patrick Robin from the above link wrote some blog software and put it up on his website for people to freely download. Like a lot of software on the internet, Robin allowed free use of the software with the condition that:

“You may not remove, alter or otherwise disable all or any of the hyperlinks to the Host Forest website (http://www.hostforest.co.uk). All images, links or text must remain unchanged and intact and visible when the pages are viewed unless you first obtain explicit written permission from the copyright holders.”

Basically, the software was copyrighted and Robin requested the backlinks to his site remain unless the user paid a licensing fee. When he discovered that the MPAA was using his software, he checked the source code and lo-and-behold, the backlinks had been removed.
So, the MPAA had become pirates. When Robin sent an email about it here is what the MPAA returned:

The material has been removed from our Web server.

• No Web links were ever provided to the blog.
• The blog was never assigned a domain name.
• The blog was never advertised to the public in any way.
• The material on the server was a proof of concept awaiting approval to move into production.
• The blog was only ever used for testing purposes.
• Should we have decided to make the move to production, then we would have paid the 25 Pounds that would have authorized us to run a version of the blog without the logos and links.

Okay, here is what is wrong with each of these points according to the MPAA’s own policies:

No weblinks were ever provided to the blog.
For people who troll the internet looking for pirates, they sure don’t know how it works. Once a file is on the internet it is publicly accessible to anyone. You may not link to it, but search engines will find you.

The blog was never assigned a domain name.
Do you honestly think the MPAA would accept that as an excuse? Try uploading Superman Returns to an IP address-only website and see what happens.

The blog was never advertised to the public in anyway.
Even if you had placed the content behind a password (which would have been a much more responsible thing to do with test material), the copyright was still broken. The software license didn’t say “don’t remove the backlinks unless you are going to make it publicly available.”

The material on the server was a proof of concept awaiting approval to move into production.
Does it sound to anyone else like the MPAA is trying to sell out its own employees? I’m sure the head of the MPAA didn’t give his approval to this project. It was likely just some programmer doing what programmers do, but remember when they went after the Universities for media that the students had on their networks (their internal networks at that). They didn’t care that the faculty didn’t authorize the media, they threatened to sue.

The blog was only ever used for testing purposes.
As opposed to commercial purposes? So if we download a movie to “test” it to see if we really want it, is that okay?

Should we have decided to make the move to production, then we would have paid the 25 Pounds that would have authorized us to run a version of the blog without the logos and links.
This is where the letter actually makes me angry. The inclusion of the amount reeks of condescension. They didn’t just say “paid the amount”, they said, “paid the 25 pounds.” As in, “it’s only 25 pounds.” Checking Amazon.co.uk, I see that War of the Worlds is currently selling for 6 pounds. Should I decide to keep it, I will pay the 6 pounds that would have authorized me to watch the movie. They admit they used the software without authorization!

Do I really think what the MPAA did was so terrible? Not really. It happens all the time. What I do think is terrible is that it was the MPAA that did it. Were it any other company, it wouldn’t even have been an issue. But, thanks to the MPAA, copying your own DVDs (even if you will never give it to anyone) is illegal. Want to copy the movie you bought to your iPod? That’s illegal to. (To copy a DVD, you have to break the built-in encryption and thanks to the MPAA-supported Digital Millennium Copyright Act, the act of breaking encryption is illegal. It’s okay for CDs-for now-because most CDs aren’t encrypted.)

I’m all for copyright. It was meant to help artists from being exploited from big companies with big lawyers. Now the MPAA is the exploiter, and should be held to the same ridiculously high standards that it holds for the rest of the world in order to make its members richer.

It doesn’t look as though Robin is going to sue. He seems like a cool guy and just thought it was kind of an interesting turn of events. But he should sue for the same reason that the MPAA sues hundreds of internet users across the world: to make an example out of them. I’m sure he’d get plenty of donations from people willing to help out with his legal fees. I’d help out. If it meant that you could finally watch a movie without contractual obligation, would you help?