Hacker News Reader

Comment by timjahn | Hacker News Reader

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.

View on HN

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. :)

“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.

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.

"I don't recall"... sounds familiar.

>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.

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.)

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_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

Copyright infringement can be a criminal offense. See: http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap5.html#506 And in particular:

> if the infringement was committed [...] by the reproduction or distribution, including by electronic means, during any 180-day period, of 1 or more copies or phonorecords of 1 or more copyrighted works, which have a total retail value of more than $1,000

So his infringement might be criminal, depending on how much he actually did.

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.

Agreed. But let's be honest. Has the MPAA ever cared about looking awful? :)

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.

What? You don't have to actively protect copyright. You're thinking of trademarks.

I think you're right in the fact that I'm confusing the two. However, it is still a slippery slope.

...no it's not.

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.

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.

You don't need to protect copyright or lose it, your thinking of trademarks.

The obvious thing for the MPAA to do is to start doing it themselves -- voluntarily send free discs to overseas units.

Yeah, you'd think they get positive PR if they sent free DVDs with pre-recorded messages from the stars before the movie.

"Hi i'm Tom Cruise and I, and everyone else at Sony Pictures, want to thank you for your service. Enjoy the show!"

I wonder how many people would find it odd if Sony a Japanese company did that. I know their a multinational and all MGM seems like a more natural fit.

Sony Pictures, not Sony. While it indeed is part of the Japanese conglomerate, it was founded in 1987 as Columbia Pictures Entertainment, Inc., and renamed Sony Pictures Entertainment, Inc. in 1991. So, it basically is a wholly owned US subsidiary.

Japan is pretty clearly part of the imperial US having ceded all military protection to the US.

Have you ever heard anyone in government use the acronym CONUS? It is supposed to stand for Contiguous United States: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contiguous_United_States#CONUS....

But it is more commonly used opposed to "United States Interests at home and abroad" - i.e. the imperial United States

Except they can do nothing and not be seen in a negative or positive light. The PR boost from doing it would be most-likely minimal; so financially not doing anything is the smarter move.

They would flood the "market" with dvd's missing the last ten minutes. This would force people into buying commercial complete versions just to find out what happened.

Kinda like breeding and releasing a bunch of sterile invasive pests to outnumber what you want to get rid of.

Congratulations, you've just described V-Discs: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V-Disc

Reply on news.ycombinator.com