MPAA Steals Code, Violates Linkware License

Written by Smaran on February 17, 2007 

A blogger who wrote his own blogging engine called Forest Blog recently noticed that none other than the MPAA was using his work, and had completely violated his linkware license by removing all links back to the Forest Blog site, and had not credited him in any way.

Forest BlogPatrick Robin, a 29 year old web developer from South England, is the developer of an ASP-based blogging platform called Forest Blog. He distributes it freely under a linkware license, asking that anyone who uses it merely link back to his site where Forest Blog is offered for download. If someone wants to remove the links back to his site, they must purchase a license. A personal license costs 10 Pounds and a commercial one costs 25.

Amazingly, the MPAA seem to think they’re above “formalities” like licenses and such. The MPAA blog, located at www.mpaa.org/blog_default.asp (currently down - pic), was using Patrick’s Forest Blog software, but had been completely stripped of his name, and links back to his site. He only found about it accidentally when he happened to visit the MPAA site.

Clearly, there seems to be a lack of concern by the MPAA of others’ copyrighted works. Therefore, is it unsurprising that their customers seem to have the same attitude towards their movies?

According to Patrick, it isn’t something new to find his blogging software being used like this. What he finds really odd is that an organisation whose goal is to “protect” copyrighted creative works has no qualms in, essentially, stealing other people’s work. The MPAA still haven’t replied to a letter he sent them about the illegal use of his blogging software.

Previously: ISP: Minimize Your BitTorrent Upload Speed!

Next: Mosts Popular DVDrips on BitTorrent (wk07)

108 Responses

Pages: « 1 2 [3] 4 5 » Show All

51 Feb 18, 2007 at 15:54 by sharpsight

MPAA: “Do as we say, not as we do.”

52 Feb 18, 2007 at 18:02 by Michael

Loves it

53 Feb 18, 2007 at 18:32 by Blue72

Please sue them and go to the small claims court with this case.

If not for yourself, then for all those who MPAA has screwed.

54 Feb 18, 2007 at 18:56 by Kelly

“Sue them”

yeah right. Have any of you actually SEEN any of the david vs goliath copyright cases? here’s what usually happens:

1. david and golaith butt heads. Doesn’t really matter who throws the first stone, but both suit up for battle.
1.5 settlement. Golaith has a public image to protect, and tries to settle with david out of court, on the premise that if he doesn’t, they can out-lawyer his ass because they have more money.
2. court. This goes on for months, tiring out david, who really has other things he needs to do. Goliath has a whole team of lawyers who live for this kind of thing.
3. ruling. The judge rules in david’s favor. Hooray!
4. appeals. Goliath appeals, but at this point David is out of cash, so Goliath out-lawyers his ass because they have more money.

These days its not really abuot who is right, it’s who can afford to wait out the legal battle.

55 Feb 18, 2007 at 22:53 by TJ

that is a damn shame. He should take them to court. He better. but did the MPAA know this. I guess the webmaster is part of the MPAA. All there employees shouldn’t be taken part in things like that. MPAA shows there true colors. They want money.

56 Feb 19, 2007 at 17:50 by Jennifer

In small claims court, you aren’t allowed to have a lawyer. So they have to bring their own representative. They probably won’t even bother, which means they get a default judgment against them which they then have to pay or be in contempt of court.

57 Feb 19, 2007 at 19:40 by Bill Hinshaw

Take the bastards for every damn cent.

58 Feb 20, 2007 at 05:56 by Chrispy

Sue them in small claims court, but have the summons delivered to some small obscure MPAA Office. Hopefully they won’t show up and you’ll get a summary judgement.

This worked for a guy who sued Dell and had the summons delivered to a Dell Kiosk in a shopping mall.

59 Feb 21, 2007 at 06:43 by Adam

Yah! How ironic!

Nice write-up Gina

60 Feb 21, 2007 at 15:03 by Alex

MPAA claimed that they used it for “testing purposes only” and that they deleted it after they finished testing it. Supposedly that’s why they didn’t care to purchase or link to that dude.

I guess I am going to download a few songs and movies - test them - and then delete it.

Apparently MPAA doesn’t have a problem with that procedure… :)

Pages: « 1 2 [3] 4 5 » Show All

Responses are closed

All remaining responses will continue to be archived. Use the TorrentFreak forums if you want to discuss something.