The Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) is being accused of illegally copying a film submitted to it for a rating. You'll recall, of course, that MPAA is one of the bodies behind more Draconian copyright infringement laws. But when it comes down to it, MPAA feels that the laws shouldn't apply to it, only to smaller entities that can't match MPAA's litigation power.

In the end, intellectual property disputes are all about who can out-sue who. Small companies that want to make money with ridiculous patents sue other small companies, which give in and settle out of court. This creates a war chest for the other company, which it will then use to sue larger companies. Cf. SCO, the company that holds the copyright on Unix, an operating system originally developed by AT&T in 1970. SCO makes its money licensing software and suing companies that refuse to license its software. SCO made a big mistake when it tried to sue IBM, alleging that IBM used Linux -- which allegedly contained code taken from Unix -- in some of its software distributions. SCO eventually dropped the case, though, when IBM refused to settle and SCO was unable to prove that Unix code was used in the creation of Linux. IBM, unlike the other companies SCO dealt with, called SCO's bluff, and SCO was forced to concede that it didn't have any winning cards.

How'd you like that poker metaphor?

The MPAA admitted making unauthorized copies of This Film Is Not Yet Rated, an expose of how the MPAA rating system works. (Incidentally, the rating system is very convoluted. Ratings are not enforcable by law, although they are enforcable by theater chains' own policies. As movie theater companies consolidate, diversity decreases. I think in the Berkeley/Emeryville/Oakland area, all the major theaters are owned by either United Artists -- a member of the Regal Entertainment Group, which includes Regal Cinemas, Edwards Cinemas, and the movie-ticket website Fandango -- or AMC. Many theater chains have a policy of not showing unrated films, meaning that if a director wants his film to be distributed commercially, he'll have to cough up the thousands of dollars required to get a rating from MPAA. This conglomeration of large theater chains allows MPAA to extort money out of anyone who wants to get a film distributed. Don't want to pay? Fine. You don't get a rating. And if you don't get a rating, then no one will show your film. This isn't such a problem for films produced by major studios, but if you're a more indie filmmaker, then the cost of getting a rating can be as much as the cost of your entire production.)