Has the MPAA ever been particularly prone to acting ethically? Throwing in some slurs to throw people off their trail seems very much like something they would

Has the MPAA ever been particularly prone to acting ethically? Throwing in some slurs to throw people off their trail seems very much like something they would do. The MPAA itself has been accused of copyright infringement on multiple occasions. In 2007, the creator of a blogging platform called Forest Blog accused the MPAA of violating the license for the platform, which required that users link back to the Forest Blog website. The MPAA had used the platform for its own blog, but without linking back to the Forest Blog website. The MPAA subsequently took the blog offline, and explained that the software had been used on a test basis and the blog had never been publicized.[121][122] Also in 2007, the MPAA released a software toolkit for universities to help identify cases of file sharing on campus. The software used parts of the Ubuntu Linux distribution, released under the General Public License, which stipulates that the source code of any projects using the distribution be made available to third parties. The source code for the MPAA's toolkit, however, was not made available. When the MPAA was made aware of the violation, the software toolkit was removed from their website.[123] In 2006, the MPAA admitted having made illegal copies of This Film Is Not Yet Rated (a documentary exploring the MPAA itself and the history of its rating system)[124] — an act which Ars Technica explicitly described as hypocrisy[125] and which Roger Ebert called "rich irony".[126]