5 ms·

Hollywood can't even provide a convenient solution for overseas American troops to enjoy a favorite American past time. The same American troops that are helpi

by timjahn 15y ago

Hollywood can't even provide a convenient solution for overseas American troops to enjoy a favorite American past time. The same American troops that are helping protect the lives of the Americans that watch all of Hollywood's entertainment offerings. At least they've (so far) decided to let this guy do some good without going after him.

jeremyarussell 15y ago
“We are grateful that the entertainment we produce can bring some enjoyment to them while they are away from home,” Mr. Gantman said. I really hope the MPAA decides that they can let one slip. The real interesting thing is what the politicians will say. It's a catch 22 if I've ever seen one. (Can't be mad, he's helping the troops, can't be happy, he's doing something "illegal".) The answer is that something like this shouldn't be illegal, but who knows if that'll ever happen.
- sliverstorm 15y ago
  Probably the best thing to do, IMO, is to simply not talk about it. If I was a politician caught in such a catch 22, if feasible, I'd try to pretend I'd never heard of it.
  - roc 14y ago
    "I don't recall"... sounds familiar.
jetti 15y ago
At least they've (so far) decided to let this guy do some good without going after him. This actually presents a really big challenge to the MPAA. By not actively protecting their copyright (which they aren't if they let this guy off the hook or turn a blind eye) they risk losing other cases because of it. At the same time, if they go after this guy they look awful.
- timjahn 15y ago
  Agreed. But let's be honest. Has the MPAA ever cared about looking awful? :)
  - bluedanieru 15y ago
    Yes, they have, and they don't go around stepping on their dick on purpose. This guy is safe. And that's a problem. He should be prosecuted, if the law is just.
- jrockway 15y ago
  What? You don't have to actively protect copyright. You're thinking of trademarks.
  - jetti 15y ago
    I think you're right in the fact that I'm confusing the two. However, it is still a slippery slope.
    - Dylan16807 14y ago
      ...no it's not.
      - jetti 14y ago
        Yes it is, because motives come into play. How does the individual who doesn't profit from copyright infringement harm the MPAA any less than somebody who profits? The MPAA and RIAA claim that they lose all this money and that piracy is wrong, yet by not taking action against somebody pirating a boatload of movies it sends a message that motives are everything.
        rexreed 14y ago
        MPAA / RIAA are weighing the cost of prosecution vs. the potential for any return / reward. If they were to prosecute and even successfully win, what would they get out of it? Certainly no financial reward as there's none there. A Publicity success? I doubt it. A ruling that serves as a deterrent? I think not. They have bigger fish to fry - legitimate pirate networks that are making millions. This is simply not worth their time, and they don't have much to lose by "letting him get away with it" as there's no active defense required to maintain copyright, and no legal precedence they are setting that lessens their ability to prosecute in other cases.
bluedanieru 15y ago
>At least they've (so far) decided to let this guy do some good without going after him. I take issue with that. I don't want to see this guy face prosecution by any means, but selective enforcement is a great evil and a tool of virtually every tyranny that ever existed. If what he does is right, then the law is fucking wrong and needs changing yesterday.
- hej 14y ago
  Ehm, selective enforcement by the state most certainly can be a problem, I cannot, however, see how selective enforcement by people or companies (who, in civil law, are always free to sue or not to sue for whatever reasons) is bad or can even be considered selective enforcement in any way. It’s a pretty central part of civil law, actually (making sure – at least in theory – that only if two parties absolutely cannot agree on their own, the legal system has to kick in), and I think it would be downright evil to require people to always sue everyone. Even state attorneys can pick and chose (to some extent), but to avoid arbitrariness they have to have good reasons for what they do, who they decide to prosecute and not to prosecute. They can’t decide not to prosecute for arbitrary reasons. (I know that’s the case in Germany, I think that's the case in the US, please correct me if I'm wrong.)
  - asmithmd1 14y ago
    This is pretty clearly criminal not just civil. Remember he is stealing from MPAA members and exporting the stolen goods to a foreign country. The US is supposed to be a "country of laws,not men." That means it is NOT supposed to be up to the opinion of one person whether an act is legal or not. What is legal needs to be decided by our elected officials. Anyone who wants to see copyright fixed should be pushing to see this blatant scofflaw thrown in jail, maybe that would focus some attention on the problem. I believe there could be some solution to the US IP legal problems both for patents and copyrights. Have you ever wondered how bands are allowed to "cover" other bands songs, even record and sell those covers? They do not need to seek permission because US law says the owner of the copyright must grant a license to whoever wants to cover the music: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compulsory_license#United_States http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compulsory_license#United_State... The license fee is 1 1/2 cents per minute of recording per copy. Rather than having completely uncapped damages at stake I can imagine some form of compulsory licensing for patents would stop all this wasted effort on patent lawsuits
Volscio 14y ago
Hollywood is not very helpful, but man, AAFES (who provides rec centers home and abroad) plus AFN (Armed Forces Network) do a pretty bang-up job keeping the servicemembers at least somewhat in touch with sporting events, films, things to whittle away the time stuck over in some hellhole. Also noteworthy are the little Korean laundry ladies who take your laundry bag, clean your filthy gear, and then offer you pirated DVDs as well for only $5. :)

by timjahn 15y ago

jeremyarussell 15y ago

“We are grateful that the entertainment we produce can bring some enjoyment to them while they are away from home,” Mr. Gantman said. I really hope the MPAA decides that they can let one slip. The real interesting thing is what the politicians will say. It's a catch 22 if I've ever seen one. (Can't be mad, he's helping the troops, can't be happy, he's doing something "illegal".) The answer is that something like this shouldn't be illegal, but who knows if that'll ever happen.

sliverstorm 15y ago
Probably the best thing to do, IMO, is to simply not talk about it. If I was a politician caught in such a catch 22, if feasible, I'd try to pretend I'd never heard of it.
- roc 14y ago
  "I don't recall"... sounds familiar.

jetti 15y ago

At least they've (so far) decided to let this guy do some good without going after him. This actually presents a really big challenge to the MPAA. By not actively protecting their copyright (which they aren't if they let this guy off the hook or turn a blind eye) they risk losing other cases because of it. At the same time, if they go after this guy they look awful.

timjahn 15y ago
Agreed. But let's be honest. Has the MPAA ever cared about looking awful? :)
- bluedanieru 15y ago
  Yes, they have, and they don't go around stepping on their dick on purpose. This guy is safe. And that's a problem. He should be prosecuted, if the law is just.
jrockway 15y ago
What? You don't have to actively protect copyright. You're thinking of trademarks.
- jetti 15y ago
  I think you're right in the fact that I'm confusing the two. However, it is still a slippery slope.
  - Dylan16807 14y ago
    ...no it's not.
    - jetti 14y ago
      Yes it is, because motives come into play. How does the individual who doesn't profit from copyright infringement harm the MPAA any less than somebody who profits? The MPAA and RIAA claim that they lose all this money and that piracy is wrong, yet by not taking action against somebody pirating a boatload of movies it sends a message that motives are everything.
      - rexreed 14y ago
        MPAA / RIAA are weighing the cost of prosecution vs. the potential for any return / reward. If they were to prosecute and even successfully win, what would they get out of it? Certainly no financial reward as there's none there. A Publicity success? I doubt it. A ruling that serves as a deterrent? I think not. They have bigger fish to fry - legitimate pirate networks that are making millions. This is simply not worth their time, and they don't have much to lose by "letting him get away with it" as there's no active defense required to maintain copyright, and no legal precedence they are setting that lessens their ability to prosecute in other cases.

bluedanieru 15y ago

>At least they've (so far) decided to let this guy do some good without going after him. I take issue with that. I don't want to see this guy face prosecution by any means, but selective enforcement is a great evil and a tool of virtually every tyranny that ever existed. If what he does is right, then the law is fucking wrong and needs changing yesterday.

hej 14y ago
Ehm, selective enforcement by the state most certainly can be a problem, I cannot, however, see how selective enforcement by people or companies (who, in civil law, are always free to sue or not to sue for whatever reasons) is bad or can even be considered selective enforcement in any way. It’s a pretty central part of civil law, actually (making sure – at least in theory – that only if two parties absolutely cannot agree on their own, the legal system has to kick in), and I think it would be downright evil to require people to always sue everyone. Even state attorneys can pick and chose (to some extent), but to avoid arbitrariness they have to have good reasons for what they do, who they decide to prosecute and not to prosecute. They can’t decide not to prosecute for arbitrary reasons. (I know that’s the case in Germany, I think that's the case in the US, please correct me if I'm wrong.)
- asmithmd1 14y ago
  This is pretty clearly criminal not just civil. Remember he is stealing from MPAA members and exporting the stolen goods to a foreign country. The US is supposed to be a "country of laws,not men." That means it is NOT supposed to be up to the opinion of one person whether an act is legal or not. What is legal needs to be decided by our elected officials. Anyone who wants to see copyright fixed should be pushing to see this blatant scofflaw thrown in jail, maybe that would focus some attention on the problem. I believe there could be some solution to the US IP legal problems both for patents and copyrights. Have you ever wondered how bands are allowed to "cover" other bands songs, even record and sell those covers? They do not need to seek permission because US law says the owner of the copyright must grant a license to whoever wants to cover the music: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compulsory_license#United_States http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compulsory_license#United_State... The license fee is 1 1/2 cents per minute of recording per copy. Rather than having completely uncapped damages at stake I can imagine some form of compulsory licensing for patents would stop all this wasted effort on patent lawsuits

Volscio 14y ago

Hollywood is not very helpful, but man, AAFES (who provides rec centers home and abroad) plus AFN (Armed Forces Network) do a pretty bang-up job keeping the servicemembers at least somewhat in touch with sporting events, films, things to whittle away the time stuck over in some hellhole. Also noteworthy are the little Korean laundry ladies who take your laundry bag, clean your filthy gear, and then offer you pirated DVDs as well for only $5. :)