How does the MPAA (and RIAA) take itself seriously?

Read the original here.

MPAA: Ripping DVDs Shouldn't Be Allowed Because It Takes Away Our Ability To Charge You Multiple Times For The Same Contenttechdirt.com
from the um,-wow dept

It's that time again when the Librarian of Congress is considering special exemptions to the DMCA's anti-cicrumvention provisions. One of the key proposals, which we discussed earlier, was Public Knowledge's request to allow people to rip DVDs for personal use -- just as we are all currently able to rip CDs for personal use (such as for moving music to a portable device). The MPAA (along with the RIAA and others) have responded to the exemption requests (pdf) with all sorts of crazy claims, but let's focus in on the DVD ripping question, because it's there that the insanity of Hollywood logic becomes clear.

Effectively, the MPAA is arguing that there is no evidence that ripping a DVD itself is legal, and since anti-circumvention exemptions are only supposed to be for legal purposes, this exemption should not apply. Leaving aside the sheer ridiculousness of the fact that we need to apply for exemptions to make legal acts legal (I know, I know...), this is quite a statement by the MPAA. While it's true that there hasn't been an official ruling on the legality of ripping a DVD, the fact that CD ripping is considered legal seems to suggest that movie ripping is comparable.

But the bigger point is that the MPAA is arguing that because they offer limited, expensive and annoying ways for you to watch movies elsewhere, you shouldn't have the right to place shift on your own:
Copyright owners include with many DVD and Blu- Ray disc purchases digital copies of motion pictures that may be reproduced to mobile devices and computers pursuant to licenses. Blu-Ray disc purchasers can also take advantage of "Managed Copy" services that are scheduled to launch in the U.S. later this year. Movie distributors and technology companies are also making available services such as UltraViolet, which enables consumers to access motion pictures on a variety of devices through streaming and downloading. Many movies and television shows are also available online through services such as Comcast Xfinity, Hulu and Netflix, or websites operated by broadcasters or cable channels, which consumers can enjoy from any U.S. location with internet access. With all of these marketplace solutions to the alleged problem PK points to, it is unlikely that the presence of CSS on DVDs is going to have a substantial adverse impact on the ability of consumers to space shift in the coming three years.

Notice that almost all of these "market solutions" mean you have to pay multiple times for the same content -- and they ignore the fact that these offerings are all very limited and may not have the content on the DVDs people have. Public Knowledge has a quick summary of how these "solutions" are not solutions at all:
The MPAA had two specific suggestions. First, consumers could re-purchase access to a subscription service such as Netflix of Hulu. They did not dwell on the fact that 1) this would require you to pay again to access a movie you already own; 2) these services require a high speed internet connection in order to work; 3) There is a reasonable chance that the movie you own is not available on any of those services at any given time; and 4) MPAA member studios regularly pull videos that were once available on those services off of those same services.

The MPAA’s second suggestion was even less helpful. In their comments, they pointed to Warner Brothers’ DVD2Blu program. This program allows people to use their existing DVDs as a coupon towards the purchase of a handful of Warner Blu-Ray disks. They did not dwell on the fact that 1) this program is limited to Warner Brothers films; 2) the program is limited to 25 exchanges per household; 3) while some Blu-Ray disks include digital copies that can be moved to other devices, it is unclear how many of the disks in the DVD2Blu program include that option; 4) only 100 movies are included in the entire program; and 5) each exchange costs at least $4.95 plus shipping (which, for the record, is about as much as it would cost to buy the digital file from Amazon.).

When you think about it, this is really quite crazy. They're saying because they offer you an option to pay for a way too expensive, very limited option that might not really exist, you shouldn't have the right to rip your DVDs. This would be like the recording industry claiming you can no longer rip CDs because they offer a limited locked down selection of music in an online store. People would revolt at such a claim, and they should find the MPAA's ridiculous claims here equally as revolting.

If the MPAA stopped there, it would be crazy enough... but no, in the mind of Hollywood, they have to take it even further. They claim that because the ability to rip your DVD might take away their ability to keep charging you for the same content over and over again, that it goes against the purpose of copyright law. Seriously. They're actually claiming that their ridiculous "windows" are "new business models" that copyright law is designed to encourage:

In fact, granting PK’s proposed exemption would be directly counter to the purpose of this rulemaking. It would undermine emerging business models that increase access to creative works in precisely the manner Congress intended the DMCA to promote.

But that's pure bullcrap. The business models in question do not "increase access." They increase the ways in which you can pay. If they want to increase access, they would let you rip your damn movie.  

It is clear that access controls have increased consumers’ options with respect to motion pictures in digital formats. The Register should not interfere with that progress. Instead, she should endorse it.

Up is down, black is white, day is night. Controls have increased consumer options? No freaking way. Controls have limited options... but have allowed the MPAA studios to set up tollbooths and charge people multiple times for content they legally had purchased the rights to.

Chris Dodd, the MPAA, and the US Congress

...aka the shining example of corrupted, crony capitalism. I love capitalism. I despise crony capitalism. Chris Dodd bailed out of Congress when it became clear that his shady dealings with Countrywide and other mortgage companies would come back to bite him. And the MPAA gave him 7 figures a year to keep in touch with DC. Read the original here.

MPAA Directly & Publicly Threatens Politicians Who Aren't Corrupt Enough To Stay Bought
from the sickening dept

Reinforcing the fact that Chris Dodd really does not get what's happening, and showing just how disgustingly corrupt the MPAA relationship is with politicians, Chris Dodd went on Fox News toexplicitly threaten politicians who accept MPAA campaign donations that they'd better pass Hollywood's favorite legislation... or else:

"Those who count on quote 'Hollywood' for support need to understand that this industry is watching very carefully who's going to stand up for them when their job is at stake. Don't ask me to write a check for you when you think your job is at risk and then don't pay any attention to me when my job is at stake,"

This certainly follows what many people assumed was happening, and fits with the anonymous comments from studio execs that they will stop contributing to Obama, but to be so blatant about this kind of corruption and money-for-laws politics in the face of an extremely angry public is a really, really, really tone deaf response from Dodd.

It shows, yet again, that he just doesn't get it. People were protesting not just because of the content of these bills, but because of the corrupt process of big industries like Dodd's "buying" politicians and "buying" laws. To then come out and make that threat explicit isn't a way to fix things or win back the public. It's just going to get them more upset, and to recognize just how corrupt this process is. If Dodd, as he said in yesterday's NY Times, really wanted to turn things around and come to a more reasonable result, this is exactly how not to do it. It shows, yet again, a DC-insider's mindset. He used Fox News to try to "send a message" to politicians. But the internet already sent a much louder message... and, even worse for Dodd, he bizarrely sent his message in a way that everyone who's already fed up with this kind of corruption can see it too. It really makes you wonder what he's thinking and how someone so incompetent at this could keep his job.

The MPAA doesn't need a DC insider explicitly demanding the right to buy laws and buy politicians. The MPAA needs a reformer, one who helps guide Hollywood into the opportunities of a new market place. The MPAA needs someone who actually understands the internet, and helps lead the studios forward. That's apparently not Chris Dodd.

Public Knowledge issued a fantastic statement that not only highlights the ridiculousness of Dodd's threats, but also the hypocrisy of the Hollywood studios on this issue:

Public Knowledge welcomes constructive dialog with people from all affected sectors about issues surrounding copyright, the state of the movie industry and related concerns. Cybersecurity experts, Internet engineers, venture capitalists, artists, entrepreneurs, human rights advocates, law professors, consumers and public-interest organizations, among others should be included. They were shut out of the process for these bills.

We suggest that in the meantime, if the MPAA is truly concerned about the jobs of truck drivers and others in the industry, then it can bring its overseas filming back to the U.S. and create more jobs. It could stop holding states hostage for millions of dollars in subsidies that strained state budgets can’t afford while pushing special-interest bills through state legislatures. While that happens, discussions could take place.

White House party-crasher booted from 'Celebrity Rehab'

Read the original story here.

(CNN) -- Reality show star and White House party-crasher Michaele Salahi has been asked to leave the television show "Celebrity Rehab" because she does not have an addiction, VH1 said in a statement.

Salahi's manager shot back, saying the network knew that all along. 

Salahi and her husband made news in November 2009 after attending President Barack Obama's first state dinner without an invitation.

VH1 said Tuesday it has canceled her appearance on the show, which chronicles celebrities undergoing treatment for alcohol and drug addictions.

"The treatment program that 'Celebrity Rehab' documents is intended for individuals with serious substance abuse and addiction issues," VH1 said in a statement Tuesday night. 

"Prior to the taping of the current season, producers were advised that Michaele Salahi met the criteria to be treated in this setting. However, professional assessments spanning from that time to the present, found that she did not meet such criteria."

However, the show knew that in advance, according to Gina Rodriguez, her manager.

"That is the excuse they used. But they knew what it was when they cast her," Rodriguez said.

The Virginia couple slipped through White House security and shook hands with Obama, and had their pictures taken with Vice President Joe Biden and Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh.

Salahi has also appeared on "Real Housewives of DC."

'King's Speech' Producer Learns Why You Don't Give Your Oscar to an Infant

Read the original story here.  Be sure to watch the video.

To win an Academy Award is the dream of most everyone in the filmmaking community, that golden statuette confirmation of the diligence, craftsmanship and artistry that went into your labor of love. That's certainly the case for the producers of Best Picture-winner "The King's Speech," who had to fight to find financing and then had to stage a rather dramatic come-from-behind victory to emerge as the big winner Oscar night on February 27. So in the euphoria after their triumph, you can understand why they'd be a little careless. But, seriously, who gives an Oscar to a 15-month-old to hold?

Unfortunately, that's what happened: Lara Egan, the daughter of co-producer Simon Egan, was handed the Oscar by the grandson of Lionel Logue (Geoffrey Rush's character) so that she could have her picture taken with it. And so she did what just about any 15-month-old does: She held it onto for a few moments, and then she let it go. The statuette hit the ground, causing dents and breaking the Oscar's chest plate. 

Simon Egan saw it fall, but he was too far away to do anything. "It wasn't so much that it fell," he told The Telegraph. "It was more the sound that it made when it hit the ground." Right afterward, there was stunned silence, and then there were some tears. "It is a thing of beauty and my daughter had destroyed it, albeit unwittingly," Egan said. "We were all terrified."

Thankfully, though, the story has a happy ending. The producers called the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences and discovered that they weren't the first people to commit a party foul with their Academy Award. "I was scared the night before to even walk across the road with it," said Egan, "but they were like, 'Come in, it is fine, make an appointment, and we will have it fixed.'"

So they went to something called "The Oscar Hospital," which handles damaged Oscars. According to Egan, a woman wearing gloves took their dented award and came back with a new one within minutes. Whether or not Egan was given a stern lecturing about proper Oscar-holding behavior is unknown, although we sorta hope he did. 

For his part, Egan sounds relieved that the whole thing turned out to be as painless as it was. But we hope all of you at home have learned two very valuable lessons. First, don't give a kid something that they might drop and break, especially if it's an Academy Award. Second, there is a magical place called the Oscar Hospital. Does the Academy offer tours? 

While we look into that, enjoy this video of cute little Lara dropping the Oscar. She won't be hearing about this the rest of her life. Certainly not.