MPAA: We Were Only Testing Forest Blog
Written by Smaran on February 28, 2007The MPAA have responded to the claims that they illegally used Patrick Robin’s blogging software. They say they were only testing it, and that the blog was “never advertised to the public in any way”. I wonder what would happen if a filesharer said he was just “testing” a movie.
Earlier this month, we wrote about how the MPAA has used Patrick Robin’s blogging software and violated the linkware license that it is distributed under by removing Robin’s name and all links back to his site. The organisation has replied with a list of excuses, hoping at least one might stick.
The MPAA has removed Forest Blog from their site. The Director of Application Development replied with the following e-mail:
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.
Sounds innocent, doesn’t it? And it might even be considered an honest mistake, if the MPAA wasn’t on a rampage, suing everybody in sight for copyright violations. The question that arose last time was, how can an organisation that’s only goal is to rid the world of piracy go ahead and illegally use someone else’s copyrighted work? Would someone who downloads a movie from one of the MPAA’s studios be able to get away by saying they were only “testing” the movie, and that they put it up on the Internet, but provided no links to it? Ever heard of Google? Patrick Robin, too, makes a similar comparison:
Whilst that all sounds fair enough but I doubt I’d get away with pirating a few movies providing I didn’t advertise it and only used them for testing purposes. hmmm!
Previously: Top 20 Less Known BitTorrent Sites
Next: Bizarre Virus Threatens to Kill File-Sharers
85 Responses (Add yours or TrackBack)
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 » Show All
I am downloading movies only for the technical aspect, I never watch them.
Movies, eh?
I’ve often wondered what those files are that I see while testing the performance of bittorrent trackers…
*vbg*
Lame and useless explanations by MPAA…
I saw this a few weeks ago and it made me laugh quite a bit as well :P
All I ever see on bittorent are Arbitrary Value Index files… they’re essentially useless, AFAIK.
I wish i was a lawyer, so i could give my time, pro-bono, to sue the ass of the MPAA on behalf of Patrick. Alas i am not a laywer, just an accountant…
Will someone step up to the plate?
I just uploaded a movie to The Pirate Bay, but I was only testing it on their servers. I guess I’m off scott free!
Even if all those excuses are true, it doesn’t explain why they’d remove his name and links. Unless it was their goal to be douchebags.
If MPAA was a dude I would punch him in the face then kick the living **** out of him…
…I hate hypocrites!!!
We are just testing their new distribution system, theyll have to make a drastic switch eventually ;)
Good. Now I can use BitTorrent all I want cuz I’m only testing those files.
removing the links is a production move, not a testing move.
If they can strip out the Blogware’s DRM for ‘testing’ then we can too.
My response is as follows:
* No downloads were ever provided to others for viewing.
* The download was never uploaded by me to anyone.
* The downloaded movie was never advertised to the public in any way.
* The material downloaded from the user was a proof of concept awaiting my approval to be purchase.
* The downloaded movie was only ever used for the interest of buying purposes.
* Should I have decided to watch the movie again or show others, then I would have paid for the purchase that would have authorized me to show a version of the movie without the use of copying and disbuting the movie, and only to give out the original copy of the movie.
Sounds good!
I’m no hypocrite! no really!
LOL
I only download movies so I can see if I like them. Should I choose to go with the box and extra features, I would have paid the $25 price.
The kicker, of course, is that they stripped out the links to Patrick’s site in direct violation of the license. This is superficially similar to removing the DRM from the movies the MPAA wish to “protect”. The big difference is that keeping the links is not an onerous requirement, whereas DRM is the most vile form of ratbaggery that prevents a person actually owning what they have legally bought.
In addition to what TJ said:
I stripped out the opening and closing credits, I should be okay then. :)
In response to 8: “unless it was their goal to be douchebags”
I think it’s more of a genetic predisposition for them.
Hypocrisy at its best!
I don’t get it , why would MPAA do this . I mean there a lot commercial software out there they can buy (since they so rich after suing so many people)
@kb
Maybe because they are a bunch of greedy, amoral, bullying and power hungry dinosaurs?
I’d happily donate money if someone can get a lawyer to go after this scum.
Its hypocrisy on a major scale and given what the MPAA supposedly stand for i could very well see a lawsuit as being successful. At the very least they would have to settle out of court to even stand a chance of looking fair.
Its certainly now a good defense for anyone sued them now.
4 references to this post
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 » Show All
Add your response