Hollywood’s MPAA — copyright violator
p2pnet news | MPAA News:- Hollywood’s holier-than-thou MPAA, which spends just about all of its time claiming people have been violating Time Warner, Viacom, Fox, Sony, NBC Universal and Disney copyrights, has been caught red-handed.
Violating copyrights.
“A huge security hole has been uncovered in an application custom-built to boost the Hollywood effort to seriously interfere with education at American universities across the land a la the RIAA —- only more effectively,” p2pnet posted at the end of last month, going on:
“Among other things, with it, the MPAA can, ‘drill down and find out where that IP address is going. Myspace, PirateBay, Grandma’s website, whatever,’ blogs David Taylor, a senior information security specialist for the University of Pennsylvania.”
Now, “MPAA don’t fuck with my shit,” posts Matthew Garrett on LiveJournal.
Garrett is one of the coders of the GPL’d software, used illegally by the MPAA, says Bit-Tech.Net, also pointing out Garrett made several attempts to get the big-mouthed Hollywood bully to have the source code distributed.
“And yes, I did attempt to contact them by email and phone before resorting to the more obnoxious behaviour of contacting the ISP,” posts Garrett, going on:
No reply to my email, and the series of friendly receptionists I got bounced between had no idea who would be responsible but promised me someone would call back. No joy there, either.
Posted on LiveJournal:
Date: Sun, 25 Nov 2007 11:02:16 +0000
From: “Kevin Ian Beaumont” <kevin.beaumont@gmail.com>
To: pegge@mpaa.org, dan_glickman@mpaa.org
Subject: MPAA University Toolkit — Copyright violations
Dear MPAA,
I am writing to inform you of multiple legal and copyright violations made in a product you distribute called “University Toolkit”, which you have been mailing out to Universities in the United States.
You distribute the tool here: http://universitytoolkit.com/
The toolkit is marketed as a tool to help universities identify copyright infringement.
Unfortunately, since you have built the tool on open source software, you need to redistribute the source code you have modified, in whole or part, as specified by the legally binding license agreement found in each of the thousands of software tools University Toolkit utilizes.
You have not done this. Therefore, your product is itself infringing copyright.
Some of the work on the disc appears to be belong to me. If you fail to rectify this, there will be two courses of action: DMCA takedown of your website, and legal action against yourselves and all parties involved.
Thanks!
Kevin
–
Subject: RE: MPAA University Toolkit — Copyright violations
Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2007 09:45:01 -0800
To: <kevin.beaumont@gmail.com>
Cc: <paul_egge@mpaa.org>, <dan_glickman@mpaa.org>,Dear Kevin
We have looked into your concerns. This toolkit was developed for us by a third party. It is our understanding that the open source licenses you reference require that the developer must distribute the source code along with the finished program only if the developer modifies that source code. However, we are advised that the developer did not modify the source code of the two open source programs they used.
Therefore, we believe that they have complied with the obligations of those licenses.
It would help us evaluate your concern that “some of the work on the disc appears to be belong to me” if you would specify the software you own and where you believe it has been used in this toolkit. =20
Regards,
Greg
Gregory P. Goeckner
Executive Vice President
General Counsel
Motion Picture Association of America, Inc.
“So far, the source code and changes have yet to be made available so this could get even more interesting if the MPAA does not provide them,” says Phil Cogar on Bit-Tech.Net, adding:
“Maybe Garrett will take them to court like other GPL holders have done lately. That would certainly make this man’s day/week/year.”
Also See:
p2pnet – MPAA anti-university software, November 27, 2007
LiveJournal – Spot the difference, December 3, 2007
Bit-Tech.Net – MPAA caught infringing copyright, December 4, 2007
Want to help p2pnet stay online? Please click here.
Use free p2pnet newsfeeds for your site. It’s really easy!
Subscribe to p2pnet.net | | rss feed: http://p2pnet.net/p2p.rss | | Mobile – http://p2pnet.net/index-wml.php
Net access blocked by government restrictions? Use Psiphon from the Citizen Lab at the University of Toronto. Go here for the download, and here for details. Click here or here to learn how to by-pass censorship in your area.
December 4th, 2007 at 10:38 am
YES! By all means he should take the MPAA to court over this.
What’s good for the goose…
December 4th, 2007 at 11:30 pm
Over and over again we see the copyright enforcers attempt to take the high road of moral unrighteousnesses. It’s a non-stop, the pirates are to blame. Yet when software comes out it is unusable because of lack of foresight, such as the software to find infringing files that turned out to be nothing more than a search for *.mp3, *.avi, or wma, which every one has one their computer. Windows comes with sample files and operating files as well as games. The software did not discriminate, it would get it all, including the sound files needed to operate sound on the OS.
Then there was the sorry saga of the special player needed to play the sound. Needless, open source library files were used in the player, yet no credit at all given, no source code, no nothing. Yet like the RIAA, they are interested in preventing piracy.
This just goes to show as always, it is do as I say, not as I do. We have a member here that has often made the statement that he was ripped off by the labels for his father’s songs. But it’s just biz when it comes to the bucks.
If they can pass off something to you to steal your data, break your privacy rights, crap even down to hiring a hacker to crack emails, all is good. Most of this is stuff that the RIAA and cohorts did. Still you can ready see the same brush paints true. It’s alright for the majors of both music and movie to rip off copyright without paying any attention to a license. It’s ok of the kids of the father does so, as he will give them a non-discussed punishment. I wonder how Tanya would like the same instead of the mockery that she was dragged through in court?
Every software issued now, has to be checked if it comes from the holders of copyright. As usual the typical excuse is we pay for the item to be made, it’s third party. Third party didn’t put it on the net. Third party is not responsible for the commissioning of such works. Yet when a license is infringed on their side, they are just testing software. Or we didn’t know that was there. Yet when it comes down to showing them, talking to them about it, you get the huge run-a-round. Wonder how they would like that in Washington? It’s high time they got such.
December 5th, 2007 at 9:51 am
“YES! By all means he should take the MPAA to court over this.”
…and use the same judges that Jammie got.