Slashdot Mirror
Hollywood Muscles Aussie ISPs Over Movie Downloading
Tenaka Kahn writes "Whirlpool is reporting that American movie companies are using a company (MediaForce) to try and muscle Aussie ISPs into disconnecting users who indulge in movie sharing."
← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)
Proving once again that U.S. government and businesses recognize no boundaries, CNN (among others) carries tidings of U.S. District Judge Stephen V. Wilson refusing to drop a copyright infringement suit against Kazaa owner Sharman Networks Ltd. (based in Austrailia, incorporated in Vanuatu) brought by the music (RIAA, no doubt) and movie (MPAA, also, no doubt) industries. Perhaps Sharman Networks spokeswoman, Kelly Larabee, should consider the fate of Manuel Noriega and how 21 million (where do they come up with these numbers?) americans are at risk of subversion by wanton music and movie swapping. Battle of the Coral
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
This kind of stuff and I often hear of colleges that don't allow students to use certain ports at all. Isn't there a way to stop colleges from doing this? What if you had another reason to use those ports, a reason they don't know about.
Somehow this has to be against your rights somehow...
It seems like if they can't stop it in the US of A they might as well try some other countries...
A company can not just barge into another country and demand their wants and rules be met. They have no legal clout, they filed no suit, it's as if someone from the next town over from where you live barges into your house and tells you to stop using your alarm clock to wake up in the morning because he created the alarm-buzzer noise.
If they cave though, then bullying becomes a legal and effective way of getting your way, and we're all screwed.
SecondPageMedia - Wha
President Georges W. has announced a new US NAVY/USAF taskforce destined to take out the communication equipment of foreign ISPs who are complained against by the *AA. The technology used is a combination of EMP and smoke-signal broadcasting.
How did anyone else other than the ISP get the IP addresses? For this company to get this information, they have to be doing some sort of spying. Obviously this is only taking place in AUS because these people could not get away with it here.
-5 dumbest joke ever. Way to try the karma whoring out though, I really think with a few more explanation points you'd be +5 for sure. Next time try combining the two points of your idiotic statement/joke into one. ie.
A carrier pigeon in the hand is worth two in George Bush's insane American regime. Hooray fanaticism!
seen a lot of these on Kazaa:
But the company does not just monitor copyright violations, it encourages ISPs to block or restrict file sharing ports on their services. It is also distributes 'decoy' files via file sharing networks which look like real music and video files, but are in fact garbled data.
It creates invalid Win32 filenames you have to delete through the command line...
Tracking by IP address is becoming more and more useless all the time. You can basically just wardrive around your neighborhood until you find an open network, and then download all your warez from there. Who will get in trouble? Not you!
Some people can even connect to other networks without leaving their own house (some California houses are really close together). You could even target someone to get in trouble just by using their open network (they might have thought they were being generous).
Sex - Find It
According to Bugtraq everyone useing P2P apps is already 0wned by the RIAA. The MPAA should ask the RIAA to just shut things down at the source.
With 1 GB or 3 GB transfer caps, and very expensive per MB charges for data transfers in excess of this, Australian broadband users are hardly likely to be sharing any movies.
Anon cos aint a Karma whore
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Dear Abuse Department:
We are writing this letter on behalf of Warner Bros., a division of Time Warner Entertainment Company, L.P. ("Warner Bros.").
As you may know, Warner Bros. is the holder of rights under copyright, including exclusive distribution rights, in and to the motion picture(s) listed above.
No one is authorized to perform, exhibit, reproduce, transmit, or otherwise distribute the above-mentioned work(s) without the express written permission of Warner Bros., which permission Warner Bros. has not granted to xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx.
We have received information that an individual has utilized the above-referenced IP address at the noted date and time to offer downloads of the above-mentioned work through a "peer-to-peer" service.
The attached documentation specifies the location on your network where the infringement occurred, the number of repeat violations recorded at this specific location, as well as any available identifying information.
The distribution of unauthorized copies of copyrighted motion pictures constitutes copyright infringement under the Copyright Act, Title 17 United States Code Section 106(3). This conduct may also violate the laws of other countries, international law, and/or treaty obligations.
Since you own this IP address, we request that you immediately do the following:
1) Disable access to the individual who has engaged in the conduct described above; and 2) Terminate any and all accounts that this individual has through you.
On behalf of Warner Bros., owner of the exclusive rights to the copyrighted material at issue in this notice, we hereby state, pursuant to the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, Title 17 United States Code Section 512, that we have a good faith belief that use of the material in the manner complained of is not authorized by Warner Bros., its respective agents, or the law.
Also pursuant to the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, we hereby state that we believe the information in this notification is accurate, and, under penalty of perjury, that MediaForce is authorized to act on behalf of the owner of the exclusive rights being infringed as set forth in this notification.
Please contact us at the above listed address or by replying to this email should you have any questions.
We appreciate your assistance and thank you for your cooperation in this matter. In your future correspondence with us, please refer to Case ID XXXXXX Your prompt response is requested.
Respectfully,
Mark Weaver,
Director of Enforcement
MediaForce, Inc. (212) 925-9997
Give it another 2 years, and you'll realize that this is no laughing matter. If you don't like it, move along, no need to start a flame war.
http://www.dontbuycds.org/
I have bee considering an idea to fight back against their bullshit. The fake music files spreading around have wasted a lot of bandwidth for a lot of people. I know people with fast connections who want to share files but end up wasting their time with fake files. What if someone setup a site with a list of checksums for files that were known to be not fake? You could check a file before you download against a known good database and then the fake files would dissapear. It would be a lot of work check each song but i think its the only way we cant be pushed around by these companies. Although actual piracy is illegal and debatably immoral thats not the most important thing here. I have a problem with companies wastiong recources of mine and my ISP's with their bandwidth and legal consultation fees. This makes me have to pay more whether or not i engage in trading the copyrighted music.
unzip; strip; touch; finger; mount; fsck; more; yes; unmount; sleep
If they released most of the movies in Australia at the same time they release them in the US, less people would download them if they didn't have to wait so long for them to be released.
As of yet, Star Trek: Nemesis still hasn't been released in Aussie theaters. and they keep pushing the date back.
"Go into the hall of mirrors and have a bloody hard look at yourself" - HG Nelson
Thanks ... from now on, I'll just have to get my copyrighted materials from a reputable pirate.
Karma? Karma? I don't need no stinkin' karma.
Give it another 2 years, and you'll realize that this is no laughing matter.
Give it another two years after that, and you'll realize you were shitting bricks for nothing.
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
Because killing off-topic idiots like you is illegal.
I imagine that about now, a whole bunch of small Aussie ISPs are pooling some cash for legal advice on exactly what they are liable for. IANAL, but such things as "common carrier" provisions, "Fair Use" and so forth are not the same as in the US. For instance, you can't tape television shows on your VCR in Australia. (warning: PDF links abound).
More info on Australian copyright law is available from the Australian Copyright Council. Interesting links:
"Einstein argued that [...] God is not capricious or arbitrary. No such faith comforts the software engineer." ~ Brooks
I mistakenly read the title as
Hollywood Massages Aussie ISPs Over Movie Downloading
It _is_ a laughing matter because the original comment is not only completely devoid of humor, it's also exactly the type of borderline insanity that makes Chicken Little proud.
Take a look here for a sample. This is what the ISP received, most likely.
Since you own this IP address, we request that you immediately do the following:
There really isn't anything that MediaForce can do. Their issue is with the user, not the ISP. I'm sure the ISP will be willing to answer any subpoena requests, but the idea of the ISP seriously thinking about disabling a customer because of one of these notices is silly.
Ask anyone who is in the right place at a big ISP. They'll tell you they get hundreds of these.
Adam
That has to be the finest in contex link to a ludacris site I've ever seen. Troll on Anonymos Coward.
wouldn't the united states trying to enforce it's own laws in sovreign lands be a declaration of war? Sending your men to a land and enforcing your laws would be, this doesn't seem much different.
Stanley Feinbaum, professional journalist and master debater! God bless the USA!
The Guide to the Digital Agenda Act 2000 -- Australia's
version of the DMCA -- could be useful in clarifying who is responsible for
policing this sort of thing.
There is one interesting bit in
particular:
ISPs and carriers
The Act
also clarifies the liability of telecommunications carriers and carriage service
providers, including Internet Service Providers (ISPs). These groups are not
liable for infringing material communicated via their facilities, unless they
have control over the content of the material, (eg if they administer the
website themselves), or they authorise an infringing act by another (eg their
subscribers). The key factors in determining whether they have authorised an
infringement include:
* the ability to prevent the
infringement;
* the relationship with the infringer;
* the steps
taken to avoid infringement; and
* compliance with any relevant industry
codes of practice
in otherwords
tough shit RIAA
Warner Bros: Hello, some of your customers are downloading copyrighted material on KaZaA.
ISP: Ummm... Well, we're going to have to get back to you on that.
Warner Bros: While we're on the phone, would it be possible to send Steven Case to you guys via air mail? We don't want him.
ISP: Ummm... No.
Warner Bros: He may be useless, but he doesn't eat much. Please?
ISP: Goodbye.
*click*
Warner Bros: Never a break...
...oOOo..'(_)'..oOOo...
If the IP and ISP are in Australia, the DMCA is so much hot air, unless, of course, the loopy bunch in Canburrah feel like respecting it through some treaty.
MediaForce... Why is it that I visualize a bunch, like Dan Rather, George Will and John McLaughlin in garish skin-tight suits with flowing capes?
Urgh.
Not .. much .. time .. must .. take .. medication.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
I imagine that only a tiny fraction of the movies shared are made by Warner Bros anyway, after all they don't actually produce pr0n do they? :p
I've handled a couple of these cases from the ISP side, they seem to just connect to different p2p networks and search for stuff they represent, then send the time, date, username, ip and filename to the isp in an email saying that the isp should take proper action against the user.
They do NOT seem to download the stuff to check if it's really what it seems to be though, i've tried to take this up with them, (thinking about fakes and stuff like that) but they don't seem to want to have that discussion.
IANAL, but isn't sharing a movie or music a copyright violation? The owners of the copyright are asking the ISP to stop the people who are infringing their copyright. What is the problem? Copyright is pretty much international law with the Berne convention. I see no jurisdiction problem here.
Q.
Wow, i don't know where that came from, but i hope this brings a new perspective to things.:)
A Fatal OE Exception has occurred, Sig will now reboot.
Still, I thought it would the the US that would come out with the P2P KGB first, really.
You said: "Well, I suppose when Bush wins in 2004 and we all move to Australia, we'll have to run our file-sharing apps via carrier pidgeon."
Fortunately they'll be prepared. There is a protocol: RFC 1149 and a sucessful test by a LUG in Norway.
Suddenly, the hairy finger of a familiar monkey tapped me on the shoulder. It was time.--G. T.
prepare for karma burn...
australia still has copyright law, and ISPs still tend to protect themselves by stating in their TOS that users who use the service to break a law are subject to termination of service. the majority of "hollywood" (read: major studio productions) are protected by international copyright, thus making it entirely legal and right for the american studio to inform the australian ISP of a user on their system violating copyright.
it's just as if you contacted an australian ISP and informed them of a user sending out SPAM. would you not expect the ISP to repremant the user, if not disconnect them entirely?
of COURSE the studios have legal clout. it's basic, every day copyright. you run a distribution system for movies protected by international copyright, you are breaking the law. this is not personal use. this is not fair use. this is an illegal distribution meant to subvert payment. framing it as anything else destroys every good-natured and honest approach to legal reasons for allowing filesharing. when you lie, you make a better case for filesharing to be illegal.
Did any one catch that? First of all, it is unfortunate that they are considering to abide... but that is not the scary part. The scary part is that Australian ISPs are seeking legal advice to check whether US companies have any jurisdiction in Australia!!!!!. Naturally, there are few lawyers here, but isn't it obvious that regardless of how big or scary a company is, it has no jurisdiction outside of US. Nothing in US has jurisdiction outside of US (besides the army maybe...)
If a P2P user illegally downloads a pirated copy of Britney Spears' latest album from another P2P user, how is it that a third P2P user is made aware of the transaction?
Even if the P2P network allows hosts offering the product which the user desires to respond directly to his IP, such hosts only know that he was searching for material, which is not in violation of the law. At this point you don't whether the user intends to illegally obtain the material or simply determine if the material is possible of being obtained illegally through the network, the latter of which has entirely legitimate uses.
What has *science* done?!? -- Dr. Weird (ATHF)
Nothing wrong with fake files. That is a legitamate and legal way for the RIAA to fight P2P. Trying to argue that something is wrong with this leads people to think that perhaps you are more interested in getting free stuff than in freedom.
In case the RIAA feels left out, do your MP3 collection too. Of course, the RIAA coud poison the stream as it were by encoding the "Stallman Sings" MP3s, but that might be a little too evil, even for them.
I bet you could even make it rather difficult to track origin of the CDs down (Corner post box 3 states over, anyone?)
Of course, I don't pirate (Really!) I just like not having to shuffle through 50 or 60 CDs every time I want to listen to one specific song in the collection. I am also offended by the fact that the potential of the technology to deliver any content to my home any time I want to view it is being slaughtered by the *AA in the name of protecting their outdated business model. If there'd been a Horse Buggy Association of America 100 years ago, we'd still be riding in horse drawn carriages today.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
After reading this article I did a little research on blocking the IP ranges of these p2p police, and found an app named peerguardian that SUPPOSEDLY blocks the ranges. (Please note the "supposedly", I don't know that this thing really works)
Look at
/ 0, 2000024985,20271225,00.htm
http://www.zdnet.com.au/newstech/security/story
One interesting quote:
"Brendan Scott, a lawyer with Gilbert and Tobin, said it was uncertain whether MediaForce could bring legal proceedings against an Australian ISP. "The reason I say maybe is that the law prohibits reproduction and distribution to the public, but, from memory, doesn't directly impose obligations on third parties," he said."
So, mediaforce is probably going to have to go after the users one by one...
The same goes for Hotline
If you don't stop reading this right now you owe me $1,000. Send check or money order too...
Look at this very last part of a follow-up article on this particular issue -- ZDNet Australia
"McKimm pointed out that when Sony successfully had Sydney man Eddy Stevens charged with trademark infringement it proceeded through the proper authorities.
He also pointed out that when Australian authorities attempted to prosecute someone in the US the process was generally considered not worth the effort. "It takes so long, we have to get a court order out of Australia, then go to the US and the US has to act on them," said McKimm. "And we do find they tend to drag their feet."
Heh.
Palaces, barricades, threats, meet promises
My ISP spends huge amount of bandwidth on trading fake files. Im sure they also spend money on lawyers from taking shit from the RIAA/MPAA. I am the one who has to pay for all of these extra costs. Whether or not these companies are breaking the law or not is debatable but i know that they are causing me problems and i would like to fight back in a legal way.
unzip; strip; touch; finger; mount; fsck; more; yes; unmount; sleep
I know its obvious but I have to rant.
I'm sick of this fricking hypocrisy from the *AA'a and related corporations and the US.
On the one hand they are continually trying to shake down the consumer with crap like regional encoding, copy-protected cd's, Trusted computing, price fixing, etc and when we cry foul and say someone has to start regulating what these companies do on a global scale, Up comes the calls for capitalism.
"No, we cant interfere with the system, it's a free market and cannot be moderated! Messing with it will destroy us all!!!". yeah right.
Yet at the same time they are constantly fucking with it, killing new technology, slowing it down as much as possible, ip claims, DMCA, US companies trying to throw their weight around the rest of the world (we know who really runs the US, it's blatantly obvious now, if it wasnt before). Hell, they are even unabashedly throwing junk onto peer-to-peer networks! Is this not some sort of net terrorism!? They dont even feel bad about it, it like a big fuck off to the whole world.
Like Janis Ian said Despite free tap water, there is still a market for bottled water. The *AA;s should stop being so fucking lazy, get off their fat asses and offer us something worth buying, instead of trying to fuck us continually with what amounts to a protection racket. Find a new business model, evolve, survival of the fittest, not the fattest, thats what capitalism is supposed to be about.
IP RANGES - MediaForce "MediaDecoys" have been spotted on irc networks (dalnet and efnet, at least) from these netblocks:
4.23.190.*, 65.247.105.* (matching *.regional-one.net hostnames), and 65.215.219.*
They have another netblock 208.251.137.0/24, as well.
MODUS OPERANDI - The "Decoys" are described briefly at http://www.mediaforce.com/services/mediadecoy.asp
The description they give their MediaDecoys exactly describes what we call a Denial of Service attack. They're boasting that their decoys are capable of flooding an alleged copyright infringer with requests to prevent anyone else from downloading from them. Such an action is unambiguously illegal in many states, and this company is doing it all without actually verifying that the person is offering AND sending a copyrighted work. They're taking blatantly abusive action against people that haven't been proven to be violating any laws.
The decoys that we see on IRC essentially do the following (discovered by watching their activity from the viewpoint of the irc server itself):
1) after connecting to an irc server, issue a LINKS command, presumably to discover more irc servers to connect to
2) occasionally do a LIST to get lists of large public channels
3) join the discovered channels and watch for activity
4) if there are any public fserves advertising in the channel, the decoy first attempts to do a public trigger to activate the fserve and get a list of files being shared from it
5) if the channel is moderated the decoy attempts to trigger the fserve directly via private msg or ctcp, or does a standard XDCC LIST. No files are actually requested or downloaded
6) after 2 or 3 minutes of no fserve advertisements, the decoy leaves the channel and continues searching for more.
7) the decoys watch channel activity for mentions of any other channel names (channels that are 'private' and don't show up in the public channel list), and attempt to join those channels as well.
8) a few (not many) of these decoys have also been observed sending XDCC LIST commands to other clients that simply have 'dcc' in their nicknames.
Nobody has observed these decoys actually downloading anything, so it baffles me how they can assume that the files being advertised are the actual files being sent if a person COULD download the file, or even assume that the person is in fact SENDING any files. In addition, if there are other decoys on the network whose sole purpose was to launch some sort of attack against irc clients sharing files (as described on the page mentioned above), we haven't found them yet.
Hope this clears a few things up about how their decoys work and what to watch for.
Max, the webspider monkey says "MediaForce Sucks!"
using netstat and tracert on win9x boxes become an advanced scanning technique?
The company behind the letter is MediaForce, a New York based anti-piracy group that uses "advanced scanning techniques" to monitor piracy across the internet and report infringing users.
I actually like the decoys, and am surprised those here who profess to respect copyright don't also. Points:
It's not entrapment; the "victim" goes in with a predisposition to pilfer copyrighted music, and the gov't isn't involved anyway. Perhaps the victim could say they weren't aware the material was copyrighted, but really, they were saved from committing an offense. Wasted bandwidth? Direct consequence of the pirate's misdeed. Deception? Yes, and entirely legal, even just. The best argument against it is merely ethical, that the decoys are (maybe) interfering with fair use, if fair use can be stretched that far. Perhaps also the bogus files clog up the P2P network by spilling into legitimate searches, but I'd like to see evidence of it first.
It's a shame, really, that piracy has to break up things like Napster, and perhaps soon Kazaa et al. It ruins the fun for the rest of us and hobbles a promising technology. The pirates should be recognized as partners with industry in bringing these down. Without the infringement the industry would have nothing to take to court, eh?
So, load 'em up.
Unfortunately, there are some people who respond to threats. In Australia we have had a number of ISPs that have failed to honour the contracts they have made with their customers out of fear of litigation. This kind of yellow belly behaviour is common where the threatened feels no respect for those who will suffer from their complacency. These are the people we need to report.
If you have had your account removed or your service disconnected by your ISP, please report it!
It is the responsibility of our freedom loving society to avoid service providers who fail to protect that freedom. If each of us take notice of these reports and boycott those ISPs that fail to protect us, then maybe we can affect real change.
How we know is more important than what we know.
...perhaps you are more interested in getting free stuff than in freedom.
Well, that would come as a shock.
How can we continue to believe in a just universe and freedom to eat crackers if we have no ale?
It never was, isn't, and never will be about the thousands who will "wardrive" or "ip-spoof" or whatever. it's about the tens of millions who disovered that they can get anything they want with a few mouseclicks and from the comfort of their homes. ISP behavior is the most important factor left after the de-facto failure of the xxAA's 'legal strategy' (e.g. Napster) and new legislation going very slowly or nowhere (e.g. CBDTPA); it's extremely hard to do something that your ISP doesn't want you to do without being caught. Given the dearth of competition in broadband in most (all?) places, if the xxAA succeed in controlling ISP behavior, then they have succeeded, period!
Imposing Libertarian views on everyone online since 1992.
I know this might be off topic, but since it comes close:
If I downloaded a movie, but I own/bought the DVD, is that a copyright infringement? Same thing with a music CD, if I made mp3s out of them, but I bought the original CD, is that copyright infringement?
In both cases, consider both making it oneself and downloading from another, but did buy a legit copy of the material.
The ISP dont have to comply to the letter at all.
Here's Zdnet's story about the case.
NumB http://www.engvig.net
Dear Sirs,
I appreciate your concerns regarding our user's private behavior on their own accounts. Your opinion is very important to us.
We are afraid, however, that your letter was mistakenly sent to the wrong continent.
Sincerely,
The Abuse Team
First of all, I'm an Australian on OptusNet cable. In March, my unlimited-download speed-capped service becomes a services with a 500 MB limit and speed caps (no, I'm not keeping it). This was due to a change in all OptusNet cable services.
Secondly, Optus speed-caps ports like those used with many P2P apps (I get a max of about 7K/s on Grokster).
Thirdly, Optus runs spiders that check the network and block connectivity on odd ports with a large amount of traffic travelling over them, for a limited time (half hour on, half hour off).
Now, MediaForce - I fail to see how they can monitor Hotline transfers and discriminate between movies and other files [unless they're sniffing every packet that travels through a backbone and reading the header/footer of every file - yeah right] without some pretty awesome and illegal technology.
Personally I use Haxial software (encrypted Hotline, basically).
This is all a load of crap, I must say. Scare tactics, nothing more. Not only does MediaForce have zero legal muscle in Australia, but they don't know jack either. I call their bluff.
no offense, but I am unsure how your actions are legal so far from what you said.
if RIAA/MPAA made fake files, they would mock something that they currently "own". So my question is (no offense, again) what is your business with downloading something like that?
And how do you fight back something that's legal? Isn't that what some of us are trying to do? To obtain our rights to continue our legal activities?
to see the stuff I'm sharing on my university's internal Direct Connect hub
There really needs to be a moratorium on the use of the words "direct" and "connect" in the names of software products.
I think I've read about this particular software before, but OTOH I work with software that uses a gateway tool called Direct Connect, a transfer tool called Connect:Direct, and I see billboards for cellphones that have Direct Connect as a feature buzzword. Or is it Connect Direct?
+1 bonus pre-emptively removed for being offtopic
"...always new atoms but always doing the same dance, remembering what the dance was yesterday." -Richard Feynman
AUStralia; USA I can see how they are so confused that they may have influence.
Also can someone please point out to these idiots that the DMCA doesnt apply under AUStralian Law.
I apologize, because this is just wild speculation. Still, if companies like Sharman Networks can hide out in foreign countries and try to avoid the legal reach of the U.S., wouldn't it be "legal" for the RIAA or its agents (or the U.S. government, for that matter) to hide out in some foreign country with a fat Internet connection and hack away?
It's an interesting IANAL question: if the original information is discovered illegally, but then confirmed, does that legally invalidate the original source of information? Consider: if the RIAA were to ask ISP.net for a laundry list of users who were engaged in suspicious activity, the ISP could refuse, and rightfully so. It's a bit more difficult to refuse when asked for information about a specific user, say any and all information about "John Doe", a "known" illegal file trader.
After all, that's how the TV cop shows do it...
I have no problem with the record/movie companies going after the users. Isn't that what the slashdot crowd has been crying all along? Don't go after the networks, go after the users? Hell, when people stop crowding my isp with nothing but illegal traffic, maybe my connection won't run like a pig?
What I do have a problem with is a bunch of arrogant american fuckwits, obviously blinded by the sunshine that comes out of their mate's asses, who think they have the right to force THEIR laws on others. Here's an idea assholes, if you're going to tell people in other countries how to run their god damn lives, take 5 minutes, 5 MINUTES to find the relevant australian law to go after them with.
Mediaforce has sent a couple of user education requests to German network operators in early 2002.
Under Australian law I could walk out in the main street of my town and start handing out VCD copies of the new Lord of the Rings movie, and the cops couldn't touch me. It is not a criminal offence until I start taking money for it.
The Copyright holder does have the recourse of a civil suit though.
Anyway, our Federal Police have better things to do with their time, unlike the FBI.
Hollywood, have you no SHAME? Hasn't Australia suffered enough?!
I would have assumed that if MediaForce really wanted results they'll need to do more than make the copyrighty infringer move to a new ISP.
What have the achieved by making the ISP close the users account? Inconvenience? Not a whole lot more.
Now, if MediaForce forgot about bothering ISP's and went after the actual people who infringed on the copyright then they might be actually doing something which will bring them closer to their Ultimate Goal.
First of all, Companies don't have jurisdiction, but courts do.
Any US (or Japanese or Lichtensteinian) company is perfectly free to hire an Aussie law firm and proceed through the Australian courts. Australia is a signatory to the Berne convention and is obligated to enforce copyrights.
Also, there are circumstances -- intentionally seeking US business, for example -- under which Australian ISP's could make themselves subject to US jurisdiction.
Finally, treaties between the US and Australia (and I have no idea what's there) could also expose Australian ISPs to American law. In that case, it's Australian law saying "OK -- what he said".
technically, when one participates in a P2P network such as FastTrack, they're still not violating copyright law.
Here's the point I want to make in a nutshell, and argue about it as you will:
nobody is violating copyright laws by simply "sharing" files. The only copyright infringers are the ones who download shared files without owning a license to those copyrighted works.
In other words, in order to break the law, one must download a copyrighted, non-free file that you don't have the rights to use. When the RIAA or MPAA claims you are breaking the law, they are bluffing - they have no way to ascertain whether you've actually got a license to use the files you share, and they have no idea whether you're downloading files which you don't have rights to.
Note that this whole argument took place many years ago when the VCR first came into popular use.
An ISP should not take action based on an unsubstantiated e-mail from some unkown entity who claims to have some authority.
These buffoons in their airconditioned offices with their window views are going to have to put in a full days work to make a difference here.
Any ISP worth their salt will not give these people any personal details. They will also know that they cannot take action against the user without some proof or some order from a local authority.
If Media Force wants to get into Australia they are going to have to stop sending worthless e-mail s and speak to local Australian law enforcement. Learn local laws and try and take this to offenders properly.
In reality they won't do that. They are going to just sit back and send their worthless e-mails and collect their fat cheques from Warner etc. No big days work coming out of Media Force, I'll wager.
The good news is that at some point the Record mafia will realise how inneffective these stupid upstart companies are and will drop them.
They will go broke and hopefully go back to loan sharking or selling snake oil.
under penalty of perjury, that MediaForce is authorized to act on behalf of the owner of the exclusive rights being infringed as set forth in this notification.
Yes, they legally state that they really do work for the copyright holder. Wow.
Now look at these sections:
We have received information that an individual has utilized the above-referenced IP address at the noted date and time to offer downloads of the above-mentioned work through a "peer-to-peer" service.
Yes, an anonomous little birdy whispered it in their ear.
we have a good faith belief that use of the material in the manner complained of is not authorized by Warner Bros
A good faith belief is nothing more than a suspicion and a lack or malicious intent. They are saying there's a good chance they are completely wrong.
we hereby state that we believe the information in this notification is accurate
Uh, yeah, like we think it's right or something. Maybe. Unless it isn't. Don't quote me on it in court.
They are requesting assistance and asking the ISP's do cut people off and requesting a response. I'm no laywer but I'd suggest the Australian ISP's simply decline the requests.
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
Actually it would be the sharing that is illegal in most countries. Sharing it, is the distribution part of it which you are not allowed to do under most (all?) countries copyright laws. Just as selling it is the illegal part and not nessecarilly buying (although both can be illegal of ocurse).
If you take Sweden as an example, it is actually legal to download but not to share (although a change in law is on the way to make the download illegal too).
Ahhh, but you assume their Ultimate Goal is to stop copyright infringement. Maybe their goal is to take over the internet. Suing and disrupting the operations of innocent third parties (such as ISPs and developers of communication software) certainly helps with that goal.
The good news to all this is that it appears the initial reactions of the Aussie ISPs in question appears to be to extend the middle digit and to tell them to "Suck on this"...
Do they actually download every file they find they believe they (or rather one they act of behalf on) hold the copyright to and then check it out? What if the file in question was for example a decoy with just random nonsens in it? What if they download something and it turns out someone ELSE hold the copyright on. Do they report themseves? (Assuming they operate were it is illegal to download and not just share.)
>Any US (or Japanese or Lichtensteinian) company
>is perfectly free to hire an Aussie law firm and
>proceed through the Australian courts.
>Australia is a signatory to the Berne convention
>and is obligated to enforce copyrights.
Yes but they should do it according to Australian laws, not US laws as appearantly they were trying.
Also, isn't it up to the authoroties (courts, police, whatever) to decide if some illegal activity has been done? That should be the proper way to handle such things in my opinion. Neither the US company, the Australian ISP or any lawyer hired can decide if illegal activity has been conducted (although they may make well educated guesses and opinions). So why should anyone (ISP) act until it was decide illegal activity was done. What if the user for example actually shared a decoy file with nonsens in it?
The British used to do this. They'd send in the gunboats to shell the capital of a country if a Brit had been 'mistreated', or if the wrong person had declared themselves ruler. Now the Multinationals send in the lawyers.
Good points. Anyway, exchanging copyrighted files with other people isn't on my justice agenda. I much prefer the quality of DVD video over DivX (however good the format is), and I've been buying three times more CDs since the music-sharing world opened my ears to the rich content out there.
But never mind me -- I'm the kind of guy that proves that even filesharing is potentially good for the market and therefore pollute the MPAA/RIAA's righteous statistics.
"But the company does not just monitor copyright violations, it encourages ISPs to block or restrict file sharing ports on their services. It is also distributes 'decoy' files via file sharing networks which look like real music and video files, but are in fact garbled data." isn't that entrapment?
technically, when one participates in a P2P network such as FastTrack, they're still not violating copyright law.
Here's the point I want to make in a nutshell, and argue about it as you will:
nobody is violating copyright laws by simply "sharing" files. The only copyright infringers are the ones who download shared files without owning a license to those copyrighted works.
In other words, in order to break the law, one must download a copyrighted, non-free file that you don't have the rights to use. When the RIAA or MPAA claims you are breaking the law, they are bluffing - they have no way to ascertain whether you've actually got a license to use the files you share, and they have no idea whether you're downloading files which you don't have rights to.
The only way this could possibly be true is if you have the right to distribute the material, which you don't. Owning an MP3 can be perfectly legal, provided you own the CD and ripped it yourself. But that in no way implies you have the right to distribute that MP3 to anyone else. It is legal for you to have an play, but illegal for you to distribute to other people, even if you believe they own the CD, since it was determine all MP3s aren;t equal, you only legally are entitled to the MP3s ripped directly from your CD. So in essense, the law is being broken twice. Once by the person downloading the material, but also by the person distributing material they have no right to distribute.
"Information wants to be expensive" - Stewart Brand, the same guy who said "Information wants to be free"
We have received information that an individual has utilized the above-referenced IP address at the noted date and time to offer downloads of the above-mentioned work via the IRC network.
It would appear they aren't looking at Kazaa or Gnutella traffic, but rather IRC Net. The hand widens and now they are apparently trying to cover ALL forms of xfer. Whats next? Usenet?
You keep going until you die..."Me".
the company monitors Napster/OpenNap, Aimster, Swapnut, Gnutella (Bearshare, Limewire & others), AudioGalaxy, Hotline, iMesh, KaZaA, Morpheus/MusicCity, Grokster, Xolox, FTP Sites and IRC.
Note the absence of eDonkey/eMule and overnet, which AFAIK are the first places most people look for downloadable movies. I wonder whether it's because Mediaforce just doesn't know any better, or because these protocols make it more difficult to identify who is sharing what (they are not anonymous like Freenet.)
Gentlemen! You can't fight in here, this is the War Room!
there were something like 'No More AOL CD's' for Hollywood and the RIAA. Oh yeah, we can always send our VHS tapes back.
ISPs - Don't log anything that isn't 100% necessary, and then set it up so it autodeletes to protect your customers. Remember that your customers are your most valuable business asset, and third parties asking you to close and account are creating a retention problem. Can you afford a 1%-3% increase in attrition?
Record/Movie Biz - Stop the witch-hunt before public opinion turns on you. Copyright is an abridgement of free press and speech... What the people gave you, we have the power to take away... Find ways to lower costs and make getting new music easy... and for God's sake MARKET DECENT MUSIC and MOVIES. Most of the crap you've foisted on us is suitable only for MST3K or the soundtrack of a movie on MST3K... Come out with something NEW already (when the biggest movies of the year are based on an old novel and a comic book or are sequels, you aren't exactly pumping out the new ideas...)
-- $G
However, saying copyright is theft is factually inaccurate. Im going to quote someone more qualified than I on this though:
" This is not a matter of opinion, but rather of law. Copyright violation is a tort, i.e., a claimed business wrong that can be settled as a matter of civil law between the two parties. There are sundry defences and exceptions that might apply. One's local public prosecutors won't pay for the investigation or lawsuit -- because they do that only for matters of criminal law. Which brings us to:
Making a copy of an abstract property over which legislated monopoly exists does not qualify as "theft": Theft is a concept in _criminal_ law, under whose provisions it applies only to tangible property (and therefore not to [downloaded songs or movies]). Crimes are wrongful acts that are considered injurious to _society_, unlike civil torts, which are private disputes that can be settled in court. Criminal cases are underwritten and paid for by the state. Proof must be shown beyond any reasonable doubt, instead of a mere preponderance of the evidence (as in civil cases). The claimed victim can't get "damages", unlike in civil law -- as the dispute is between the accused and the state, not the accused and the claimed victim. Last, the accused can be imprisoned, instead of just being subject to monetary awards and court orders." Rick Moen (Linux Mafia - posted this on the rec.arts.sf.written.robert-jordan newsgroup about "theft" of an e-book. However, its applicability here is obvious.
Course, I tend to forget that the /. crowd likes to lean toward the everything should be free mentality and we all should live in Shangri La where everyone can get whatever they want without consideration of the people who actually created the product.
Finally, just because a company is based in the US it doesn't mean they have no legal complaint in other nations. Many companies hold both US and international patents and copyrights in other nations. With the economy being as global as it is doesn't only make sense to protect your property as much as possible in all of your markets?
Bitch all you want, but if these companies hadn't been publishing the movies/music all these years none of you would have anything to steal/share. This doesn't make those companies infallibe in my eyes but their actions don't make them the hand of the devil either. They are a business protecting their interests - just like you guys contacting ISPs to encourage them to do nothing are trying to protect yours.
Oddly enough though, I imagine if you were the president of one of those same companies I imagine your view would change pretty quickly. People are notoriosly willing to be careless with other peoples money.
MediaForce has been doing this in the US for some time. I did a little work in the Abuse department of a major ISP, and we received a lot of complaints from them, about our users trading copyrighted material.
$x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
$x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
MPAA: "Our records indicate you downloaded an illegal movie."
You: "I did no such thing."
MPAA: "These logfiles clearly state that you downloaded the file named LOTR.Two.Towers.SCREENER.PROPER.avi"
You: "Ahhh... *That* file, well, I was usink kazaa you see..."
MPAA: "That is irrelevant. You were violating international copyright laws"
You: "no, no, you see the file actually contains raw donkey rape porno, filenames on kazaa are irrelevant, want to see the files contents?"
MPAA: "umm.. noo, that won't be neccessary..."
You: *** flick on donkey sound clips in background
MPAA: "uhm.. well, we won't prosecute this time, but let this be a warning to you"...
Indeedy, I picked up a nice audio CD that was left in an old drive here at work. The first two tracks are gibbled, but since I now own an original media I can go out and (I believe) legally copy a working disc.
The same thing applies to discs I own... one of my CD's fell out of the case between the car seats and got scratched all to hell. I think I have it as part of a collection on an MP3 disc, but otherwise Kazaa, etc would be the tool I use to get the tracks and burn a new working copy - and legally too since I bought the original media.
Even downloading music isn't illegal, unless you're downloading music you don't own in an original format. For some people, it's easier to go on Kazaa and rip songs to make a mix/backup CD than try and strip them to Mp3/wav from a CD, or copy a protected CD for backup purposes.
>Also, isn't it up to the authoroties (courts, police, whatever) to decide if some illegal activity has been done?
Yes and no. For example, copyright law has both civil and criminal components. Any copyright owner is entitled to bring civil action. In addition to that, many laws (I don't remember for the US copyright law -- and have never known for the Australian law) have "private Attorny General" clauses that allow pursue criminal offenses in civil courts.
My guess is that they have some big automated tool that does a whois lookup of the domain, and sends an automated letter (or is this email... even more likely then).
I very much doubt they look at all of them...
To place the shoe on the other foot, consider how many corporations are based in the United States and small fry like Vanuatu have to put up with that sort of insulation when they have issues with the corporation. Not a thing wrong, as far as I can see with incorporating in sovereign nations. It should be a matter for the Department of Commerce or such to determin which of these are allowed to enter into dealings in the United States.
That said...
The internet has already bypassed by feat laws and borders in a headless movement. Government efforts, like the Great Firewall of China and Bush's upcoming route-everything-through-Washington-D-C, are taking shape. The heady days of the wild west are coming to an end. Eventually any government would be able to restrict access to any IP address with by entering it and activating a block.
The only hope is to subvert such efforts with VPN's and such (which some ISP's are already barring.)
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
I can't imagine anything possible that more opens the door to this abuse of one country by another then that decision, which has now also been mirrored by the California court allowing KaZaa's Australian owners to be sued in the Golden State.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
Mod Points: Helping you keep your opinion to yourself.
>Yes and no. For example, copyright law has both
>civil and criminal components. Any copyright
>owner is entitled to bring civil action.
Yes, but you do that through some sort of court (or court like) procedure, no? Or is for example USA that different? After all, we are talking about breaking a law here, not some sort of contractual issue. On top of that, a user is (possibly) breaking it, not the ISP who they have contacted.
Distribution is different from merely making certain copyrighted works available for others to download at will. Distribution, in the copyright world, implies an active component to the transaction, which, from the uploader's point of view, is simply not present in the majority of P2P transactions.. in fact, quite the opposite! The most popular P2P programs will actually search your hard drive for mp3 songs to share by default; the user of such programs doesn't even have to actively tell the machine what to make available. Simply install Kazaa Lite and away ye go..
>Yes, but you do that through some sort of court (or court like) procedure, no?
Absolutely. But look at what this story is about. Some ISPs got a letter asking them to do something. If they choose to do it, fine. If they choose not to do it, also fine.
However, if they choose not to do it, they may be sued (in a court) and they, because of the letter , will be unable to claim that they were unaware of infringing activities.
Nothing extralegal here. In fact, it makes sense to send a letter before suing. Lawsuits cost a lot of money. Why spend it and why waste court time if you don't have to?
fuck with Australia.
Proof: Sony Vs. the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission.
For those too lazy to read it... Sony didn't win.
... and then there were none
maybe for you,
but then we would have to put up with them..
maybe they woudl try illigal imigration,
then we can put them in dention centers with
all the other threats out there..
You have 5 Moderator Points!
Which Helpless Linux zealot/MS basher do you want to mod down today?
So when the ISP comes knocking, all I have to do is wave around a copy of the CD and Bob's my uncle, right?
Even if i do not download any real or fake copyrigh5ted material it still costs me money. My ISP has to pay for all that bandwidth that is being used and they also pay for lawers to protect themselves against being sued by the RIAA/MPAA. I am the one who pays the everything they spend their money on.
unzip; strip; touch; finger; mount; fsck; more; yes; unmount; sleep
I'd agree with you if you mean that "distributing" is actually "pushing" copyrighted material (illegally - meaning the receiver has no right to the copyrighted material) to another's hard drive. When one pulls an mp3 (as in current P2P networks) then the uploader is merely a passive party to the transaction - the software makes it possible for the uploader to be unaware that a transaction is even taking place.
Either way you are distributing it. You have no right to make it available to people at all. If I have a prescription for Prozac, it is illegal for me to set them on my front lawn with a sign saying (feel free to take one). Even if the people who take them also have a prescription for prozac, it is still illegal for me to distribute them, which is what I am doing by making them availble for anyone to take. The same applies to MP3s on P2P. I am making the MP3s I have (and may or may not have the right to legall own/use) available for anyone to take. I am distributing them, by making them available for people. Just because I am not actively giving the MP3s to people doesn;t mean I am not distributing. CNet distriubtes shareware, even though you have to go there and download it yourself. If I make counterfeit money and just leave a pile of it sitting somewhere, I will still be charged with distributing it.
"Information wants to be expensive" - Stewart Brand, the same guy who said "Information wants to be free"
ok, problems, I get you. But I don't see how you can fight back the fake files thing.
Even if it's not you, people technically should have no business downloading these files (since they don't know if they are fakes or not). If users from your ISP are doing this, then you can't do anything but "educate" these people. In any case at all, there's not one single legit way to fight *AAs for their "fake" files. P2P is for trading files, that's it. Files are fair game as long as they don't contain backdoors or viri.
Now *AAs will not pursue/sue unless you give them a reason to (COUGH COUGH COUGH WEEEZ COUGH, HACK HACK, COUGH. OMG@!!!!! BLOOD, COUGH COUGH COUGH COUGH CHOKE CHOKE CHOKE, woooooo), but that's a completely different issue. If you are pissed because you are paying for bandwidth, you might wanna try netzero or something
You are mixing law with practice. Or theory with real life. Yes, australia has signed the berne convention and that obliges it to follow copyright. But this is just theory. The internet just doesn't work that way. And we are way beyond the right or wrong question: now it's just on what's best for the public and the artist. And surely the current copyright system is way too old. So this is real life. Welcome to real life dude. Get used to it.