BMF thank you for your thoughts and I agree with what you say about the slippery slope, it is very easy to have found other way to have made money for their cause but it only takes one time to end up in the sights of the MPAA. Many feel that I am out of touch with the main point of the young girl mission which was to raise money for Haiti relief. To play the devil’s advocates think of it this way:

Average adult movie ticket price = 8 to 9 dollars
Average child movie ticket price = 6 to 7 dollars

So say that 100 people attend the “free” movie outside some one home:
On the low end 50 adults (50*8=400 dollars) and 50 kids (50*6=300 dollars) = 700 dollars that would have gone to the theater and the MPAA is not going there. On the high end 50 adults (50*9=450) and 50 kids (50*7=350) = 800 dollars. Now your saying wow only a hundred dollar difference and only 800 didn’t make it to the MPAA. Well this is small scale simply multiply that by thousands of people who see the movie some other way than going to the theater. Those number than jump into the hundreds of thousands. And people are wondering why movie ticket prices are so high!

And yes the Golden Rule is a great ideology to live by and teach your children, but once again there are many ways to raise a dollar.

What a demonstration of great parenting and marvelous follow through of practicing the Golden Rule! Love trumps cynicism! Let's hope 'civic' is never outed. He flunked the 'ethics' course in law school.

I applaud the efforts that these girls and their families went through to raise money for earthquake victims. That being said, I don’t condone what was done. If this were acceptable, then where is the line drawn? What if a high school shows a film in its auditorium to raise money for computers, library books, supplies, etc.? I can hear you say “But it’s for the children”. It’s a slippery slope once you set down that path.

Any movie studio who would choose to make an example or seek restitution out of a case like this would be absolutely nuts due to the public backlash. All in all, I don’t think this is a big deal, and I’d wager that the studio hasn’t lost a single penny resulting from this showing. It’s the bigger picture and precedent that people should think about.

Copyright in regards to movies from the Motion Picture License Corporation:

These simple and straightforward rules are detailed in the federal Copyright Act, as amended, Title 17 of the United States Code. According to The Copyright Act, only the copyright owner holds the exclusive right, among others, “to perform the copyrighted work publicly.” (Section 106) In summary, the Copyright Act mandates:

* The rental or purchase of a Video does not bear the right to perform the copyrighted work publicly.(Section 202)

* Videos may be shown without a separate license in the home to “a normal circle of family and its social acquaintances” (Section 101) because such showings are not considered “public.”

* Videos may be shown without a license for non-profit educational purposes and in certain narrowly defined “face-to-face teaching activities” because the law provides limited exceptions for such showings. (Section 110(1).

* All other public performances of Videos are illegal unless they have been authorized by license. Even “performances in ‘semipublic’ places such as clubs, lodges, factories, summer camps and schools are ‘public performances’ subject to copyright control.” (Senate Reprt No. 94-473, page 60; House Report No. 94-1476, page 64).

* Both for-profit organizations and non-profit institutions must secure a license to show Videos, regardless of whether an admission fee is charged. (Senate Report No. 94-473, page 59; House Report No. 94-1476, page 62)

* A party is liable for contributory infringement when it, with knowledge of the infringing activity, contributes to the infringing conduct of another or provides the means to infringe. Vicarious liability arises where a party has “the right and ability to supervise the infringing activity and also has a direct financial interest in such activities.” Gershwin Publishing Corp. Vs. Columbia Artists Management, Inc., 443 F.2d1159, 1161 (2d Cir. 1971). Both the property owner and exhibitor must make sure a license is in place before a Video is shown by either party.

Non-compliance with The Copyright Act is considered infringement and carries steep and significant penalties. Such exhibitions are federal crimes and subject to a $150,000 penalty per exhibition (Section 506). In addition, even inadvertent infringers are subject to substantial civil damages ($750 to $30,000 for each illegal showing) and other penalties. (Sections 502-505)

Source: http://www.mplc.com/aboutLaw.php

Nothing like a little charity work at the expense of the movie industry.

How absolutely wonderful! I am so proud of these children and their parents. We all need to put our thinking caps on and come up with some more ideas.

Way to Go!