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.
Woah, the MPAA admitted that it had
duplicated pirated a without the filmmaker’s permission?
“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.
Implications for your employees? The movie is about the rating systems, of course it has implications for your employees. It’s what they do for a living! Spying is a rather large term that, without more specific definition, is not illegal. Neither is going through the garbage (once it hits the curb, it becomes public domain…or do you not watch law and order?) or following you town. Just admit that you got caught with your hand in the cookie jar, a cookie jar that apparently no one is allowed to take from:
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.”
Also worth checking out: MPAA admits to unauthorized movie copying
[tags]MPAA, copyright, piracy[/tags]0