Opinion: The MPAA’s (free) trials and tribulations
This article was originally on a blog post platform and may be missing photos, graphics or links. See About archive blog posts.
Nobody likes to pay for free software, but you’d think the MPAA might be a little more careful than the average person to read a program’s licensing terms. The Hollywood trade group starred in a blogosphere mockumentary over the Presidents Day weekend after a software developer complained that the MPAA had used his handiwork without giving him credit. The software’s author, Patrick Robin, distributes the Forest Blog blog-creating technology for free under a ‘linkware’ license -- that is, those who use it must provide links on all their blog pages back to Robin’s main website. Otherwise, they have to pay a small fee. Robin said he came across a few blog pages on the MPAA site last October that had been created with his software, but all the links to Forest Blog had been removed. So he sent the organization a note and forgot about the issue until earlier this month, when he came across the same pages again. He went public with his complaint, quickly prompting the MPAA to remove the pages and send him an explanation. The pages were part of a test that was never meant to be seen by the public, the MPAA told Robin, and had the group decided to use the software, it would have paid him for a commercial license.
Here’s a comment from Kori Bernards, the press spokeswoman who, sadly, had to deal with this issue on Presidents Day instead of hanging out at the multiplex:
While researching different blogging software, we tested a program that ultimately was never used at all. The software was later left dormant on our internal servers when it should have been pulled down - an oversight we corrected immediately when it was brought to our attention. No organization takes copyright issues more seriously than the MPAA. If we had purchased this software, we would have credited and compensated the owners appropriately. We regret the crossed signals that occurred internally and will ensure it doesn’t happen again.
The point here isn’t that the MPAA left some stuff on its servers too long; it’s that it violated the simple terms that the, ahem, copyright owner set for using his work. Those terms required users not to remove the links to his company’s site unless they bought the product. It’s a bit like saying that a movie on DVD can’t be shown in a bar or restaurant unless an extra fee is paid. Perhaps this would have been easier for the MPAA to understand had Robin forced them to read an Interpol warning while his software was being installed on their servers. At any rate, here’s hoping the MPAA revives the blog project so CEO Dan Glickman can have an open forum for exchanging views with the public.