Slashdot Mirror
Blizzard Gets DMCA Smackdown From Sony
tdye writes: "Blizzard has apparently released an internal memo banning P2P software inside the company. They've been served by Sony with a DMCA note, based on rampant music sharing inside Blizzard. I guess what goes around, comes around! You can see it on Declan McCullagh's PoliTech website."
Did Sony actually know that Blizzard had this sort of thing going on, or do they just send letters like this out to every High Tech company under the theory that they've all probably got something going on?
Username taken, please choose another one.
Should Sony have sent a C&D to Blizzard? Perhaps.
It is okay to share music with your friends? Sure.
Is a P2P network a group of your "friends"? Probably not.
Is bringing MP3s to work okay? Sure, why not.
Is using company time and bandwidth to download and search for MP3s on a P2P network a good idea? uhh, NO, you're at work!
Free Mac Mini
Ironic Iron Plate Mail of the Damned
Defense: 534
Smite Damage: 1 - 2
Required Strength: 45
Required Level: 39
+204% Legal Defense
+843% Resistance to Flames
+436% Faster legal woe recovery
+2264% More gold received from Bnetd
+30125 Running speed
-342 HP for every DCMA attack
Karma: Excer..ex...excellahhh...realll good (mostly affected by drinking not done in moderation)
It seems many of you think this is a good thing because of thier atacking the bnetd project. You all really couldnt be more hypocritical. An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind. Blizzards actions may have been wrong, but so are sonys (arguably). If you are going to condem one instance of it, you should condenm every single action taken by a corporation that tries to limit the freedom of others to protect thier profits. To do otherwise makes you look very dumb.
Your enemy's enemny is not your friend if both are your enemy.
Mess Stuff Up
I work in the IT department of a major US University and, at least on our campus, these C/D letters have been popping up quite frequently lately. It appears that Sony (and maybe other major labels) must be running some sort of harvesting software that just searches for songs to which they hold copyrights, does a quick "whois", and mails off form letter style nasty grams to the contact listed. fyi, they look something like this (identifying info is X'd out, I like my job :)
original complaint:
RE: Unauthorized Distribution of Copyrighted Work: X
Dear X University:
As you may know, the musical group X is currently subject to a recording agreement with Sony Music ("Sony") pursuant to which Sony is entitled to X's exclusive worldwide recording services and the exclusive, worldwide right to distribute all audio and audiovisual recordings recorded during the term of that agreement through any and all media, including distribution via the Internet.
We have received information that an individual located at X.X.X.X on your network has offered downloads of the above-mentioned work(s) at the noted date and time through your service. No one is authorized to perform, exhibit, reproduce, transmit, or otherwise distribute the above-mentioned work without the express written permission of Sony, which permission Sony has not granted to the user located at X.X.X.X.
The attached documentation specifies the account or username offering this infringing material, the name and size of the file being offered, the number of repeat violations recorded at this specific location, as well as any available identifying information.
We are asking for your immediate assistance in stopping this unauthorized activity. Specifically, we request that you remove the site from your system or (in the case of a peer-to-peer service) disable access to this site; or at a minimum delete the infringing files that have been downloaded.
In addition, we ask that you inform the individual(s) involved of the illegality of his or her conduct and confirm with us, in writing, that this activity has ceased.
You should understand that under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, if you ignore this notice, your company/institution may be liable for any resulting infringement.
As owner of the exclusive rights to the copyrighted material at issue in this notice, we hereby state, that we have a good faith belief that use of the material in the manner complained of is not authorized by Sony, its respective agents, or the law.
Also, we hereby state that we believe the information in this notification is accurate, and, under penalty of perjury, that we are is authorized to act on behalf of Sony.
The foregoing is not a full recitation of the facts and law pertaining to this matter, and all of our rights and remedies, including the right to
recover monetary damages, are expressly retained.
We appreciate your assistance and thank you for your cooperation in this matter. Please contact us at anti-piracy@sonymusic.com should you have any questions.
In your future correspondence with us, please refer to Case ID X.
Your prompt response is requested.
Sincerely,
Anti-Piracy Group
Sony Music Entertainment Inc.
550 Madison Avenue
New York, NY 10022
Infringment Detail:
Infringing Work: X
Filename: X.mp3
First Found: X/X/2002 X:X:X AM EST
Last Found: X/X/2002 X:X:X AM EST
Filesize: Xk
IP Address: X.X.X.X
Network: KaZaA
Protocol: FastTrack
Username: X@KaZaA
...for sharing files is Windows File Sharing. Just right click on a folder of mp3's and switch on sharing to let your colleagues enjoy your collection. I would just love to see it outlawed.
-- SIGFPE
>No they can't. Blizzard is owned by sony. This was a memo that went out to all companies under Sony's umbrella
They are owned by Videndi-Universal, not Sony... Not that VU is any better than Sony.
The comedy of this is that Blizzard is owned by Vivendi Universal, one of the big 5 record labels, as well as a member of the MPAA.
Quit feeding the trolls. MP3 files are perfectly legal - the MP3 I rip for my personal use to avoid scratching the original disc are no more illegal than the tapes I dub so I can listen to the same songs in my car. The RIAA lawyers may play dumb, but this is clearly covered as fair use.
What's illegal, maybe, is sharing those MP3 with others in your office. Or it may be legal as well - fundamentally no different than people playing their own personal CDs in a community player. This wouldn't be legal in a "commercial establishment," but the latter refers to businesses open the public such as bars and restaurants, not offices.
For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. -- H L Mencken
Entertainment copyrights.
Isn't an illegal act of circumvention NOT a copyright infringment, but a totally different tort/offense? That is why fair use is apparently not a defense against it (the Constitution not withstanding). Bypassing the lock and unauthorized use of the content protected by the lock are 2 different things. (17 USC 1201 violation versus violation of the copyright specific part of Title 17).
Anyone else find this strange?
Note, the complaint says circumvention .. thereby .. infringement. This means the the first implies the second. This is a much stronger statement than just that circumvention allows infringement - it states circumvention IS infringement - not even the DMCA says that.
Just because it CAN be done, doesn't mean it should!
Scotty: How long did you tell the captain the deflector work would take us?
LaForge: Two hours and we have barely more than that till the Borg cube arrives.
Scotty: And how long will it actually take us?
LaForge: Two hours-like I told him.
Scotty: Geordi, ye've got a lot to learn. You never tell captain's how long it will really take. How do you expect to earn a reputation as a miracle worker that way?
My father is a blogger.