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

...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.

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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