Slashdot Mirror
Gentoo Package Accused of Violating DMCA
cshields2 writes "A recent post to the Gentoo mirrors mailing list passes along a DMCA violation claim that one of the mirror admins recieved. Supposively their bot saw the words "Pac" and "Man" in the filename INFMapPacks123FULL-MAN.zip and assumed it was an illegal copy of PAC-MAN. The file is actually for Unreal Tournament Infiltration. This is comical in one sense, but to be read by a hosting company who does not know any better can be frightening. Has anyone else ran into this with good (or even bad) outcomes?"
The note is just to make sure that if the letter gets to the wrong recipient, that recipient cannot disseminate the information in the letter. It does not restrict the right of the intended recipient to do whatever they wish with the information in the letter.
NMG
E-mail is the property of the sender and receiver, and both have the right to do with the text as they see fit. Thus, posting it is legit.
Anyone who says otherwise is merely trying to utilize scare tactics.
The note is just to make sure that if the letter gets to the wrong recipient, that recipient cannot disseminate the information in the letter. It does not restrict the right of the intended recipient to do whatever they wish with the information in the letter.
NMG
>Note: The information transmitted in this Notice is intended only for the >person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential >and/or privileged material. Any review, reproduction, retransmission, >dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, >this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient >is prohibited.
that's just standard CYA. a lot of lawyers and such include it at the end of every email.
What is this all about? They are trying to hide the fact that they are sending out these letters?
That's all standard boilerplate that is included in most any legally confidential communications. My mom is a shrink, and every fax she sends contains that text. It doesn't restrict the actions of the intended recipient. My mom's clients can still show the fax to anyone they please. It's so that if my mom sends it to a client, and someone else picks it up out of the fax machine, they aren't supposed to give it to all their friends. It's weak juju to indemnify the sender of lapses in confidentiality.
If they wanted to stop the intended recipient from spreading the message around... they couldn't, but they'd be much more threatening.
There are no trails. There are no trees out here.
Similar to the way people have salted web pages with phony email addresses to poison robots that scrape web pages for email addresses an effective way to poison the DMCA robots is to salt your web site with nonsense files with names the robots will pick up. There is a procedure for contesting DMCA take down notices. http://www.personal.utulsa.edu/~benjamin-chapman/c le/dmca_summary.htm
I have not read the DMCA, but it would seem that if the file actually is PacMan, it would violate regular copyright law, not so much the DMCA. Hosting a file that allegedly infringes on a copyright is not the same as circumventing a copy-protection mechanism.
Does anyone else sense that companies are using the acronym DMCA as a buzzword and for intimidation purposes, instead of using the proper term?
Besides, I think PacMan should have been in the public domain long since. I can't imagine that these companies are going to make more money off of people buying old versions of PacMan. Anyone with any decent experience could program his own. I even had a version on my calculator at one point.
Help find a cure for cancer. Join the [H]orde
Sometime ago a story was posted about the same thing, searching FTP sites for files, and keyed off the word 'office'.. so the letters went a-flying..
Good thing it wasnt 'auto suits'.. Innocent people would have to pay to defend themselves for doing NOTHING... ( remember its civil court, its on your to prove innocence.. )
Morons.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
The note is just to make sure that if the letter gets to the wrong recipient, that recipient cannot disseminate the information in the letter.
I suppose that all depends on what country you live in. I have been seeing disclaimers like this on email quite a bit lately and I asked our legal department about them. They told me it depends on whether there is a pre-existing NDA between me (or the company I work for) and the sender (or the company they work for). If there is, then I must abide by the terms and conditions of that NDA. However, if there is no NDA in place and I receive information that I did not request or was not intended for me specifically, from a legal perspective I am free to do whatever I want with that information. I may be subject to ethical and moral restraints, but legally, I can act as I please.
So, if someone sends me confidential information by accident or their workstation is running the latest microsoft trojan and it sends me confidential information that was never intended for me, there is no legal requirement (here in Canada at least) for me to inform the sender about it or delete the message unless I choose to do so. I could also legally act on that information as well (e.g. buy/sell stocks based on the quarterly financial reports I received before they go public). Presumably, I could forward that information to other people and not be committing any crime, although I did not ask that question specifically, so take that part with a grain of salt.
The lawyers reminded me that it may not be ethical to do any of those things, but from a strictly legal perspective, I would have done nothing wrong.
*** Where are we going? And what's with this handbasket?
I seem to recall, from a post on yet another DMCA article here on slashdot, a lawyer (who was definitely not offering advice, naturally) saying that the "under penalty of perjury" part doesn't apply to the claim of copyright infringement. It applies, instead, to the assertion by the sender of the letter of said sender's right to represent the owner of the copyrighted material.
In fact, I believe that it was the interview with the IP lawyers from the DOJ...
So, you can't punish the company sending frivolous claims unless they don't have the right to be making silly claims about that particular material.
Nope. Read the interview with the US Attorney a while back. The "under penalty of perjury" part of the DMCA notifications only applies to claiming to be the author or agent of the allegedly infringed work. It does not apply to whether or not the file in question actually contains the infringed work.
"Has anyone else ran into this with good (or even bad) outcomes?"
/. Interview withMichael O'Leary, Deputy Chief for Intellectual Property at the DoJ:
..." - by OWJones
Here's one example from earlier this month:
RIAA's scare tactics bound to backfire
We already saw this happen earlier this year, when the RIAA was forced to apologize to a Pennsylvania State University professor for sending him and dozens of other people legal warning saying that they were violating federal copyright law. The RIAA's automated program apparently confused two separate pieces of information--a legal MP3 file and a directory named "usher"--and concluded there was an illegal copy of a song by the musician Usher.
Also, from the
9) "... under penalty of perjury
In copyright law, 17 USC Section 512(c)(3)(vi) states that all notifications of copyright violations sent to ISPs must contain
A statement that the information in the notification is accurate, and under penalty of perjury, that the complaining party is authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed.
(emphasis mine).
Do you know of any cases in which the sender of an invalid takedown notice -- such as the RIAA claiming Penn State University Emeritus Professor Peter Usher's lecture on radio-selected quasars was, in fact, an mp3 from the musician Usher -- has been successfully charged with perjury? Or do you allow copyright holders some "fudge factor" with the perjury aspect, since
1. It was an mp3.
2. It did have the name of an RIAA-represented artist in the title, and
3. It was at a university.
If copyright holders are allowed leeway, can we expect to see similarly loose definitions of perjury creep into the legal system? If the police are looking for a "Caucasian male, age 50-60, bald, 200-225 pounds," can I testify in a court of law that the 18 year-old caucasian male with a ponytail, weighing 140-150 pounds, is in fact the suspect since he is, after all, a caucasian male?
I realize that's more than one question and that they're slightly loaded, but I'd appreciate any comments on how seriously the DoJ takes the perjury clause of the takedown notices.
O'Leary:
Your question raises an important point. We feel strongly that everyone should comply with the requirements of all laws. Legal process under the DMCA or any other provision of law should be undertaken with the utmost care and good faith. Failure to do so undermines the credibility and effectiveness of our legal system.
Having said that, it appears your interpretation of the language in 512 (c)(3)(vi) is in error. The phrase "under penalty of perjury," applies to the representation that the complaining party is authorized to act on behalf of the copyright owner. It does not apply to the accuracy of the information about the alleged infringement. Quoting federal district Judge Bates in Verizon v. RIAA, The DMCA also requires a person seeking a subpoena to state, under penalty of perjury, that he is authorized to act on behalf of the copyright owner, 257 F. Supp.2d 244, at 262. In other words, the perjury clause may be violated if you seek a DMCA subpoena without the authorization of the copyright owner.
We are unaware of any prosecutions for violating this provision of the DMCA at this time.
Mod Karma -1: I sed bad wurds. If I cep my mouf shut, I wud be at riyses.
Actually, from what I understand, the "under penalty of purjory" bit in the DMCA is that the lawyers submitting the notice are swearing that they are authorized by the Copyright holder to be doing it, NOT that they are swearing a given complaint is correct.
Personally I think the law should be changed to the later so we can prosecute these bone-heads as apropriate for using scripted code without real checks as to what they found.
This space for rent. All reasonable inquiries will be entertained at proprietors discretion.
As I mentioned in the list post, yes, this is silly and amusing, but it still has to be treated seriously. I met with our company lawyer yesterday (who is pretty well-versed in the DMCA, and hence has slightly less than glowing praise about it). The basic response of course is to reply, explaining that they are in error and to consider the matter closed.
While I would like nothing better than to go after these people for gross abuse of the legal system, my company, like many other companies, cannot justify the costs associated with going to court over something like this. This is why you should donate to an organization like the EFF, and tell them you are concerned about the DMCA and its effects.
(Standard IANAL disclaimer for the following:) Also, check out this form if you are a mirror provider. It deals specifically with the DMCA, but does not necessarily provide protection against, but it may help. It is intended for transit providers/datacenters (which we are), but from reading its defintion of a "service provider", mirror sites MAY (again, IANAL) qualify in the same respect.
everyone knows that the Pac Man rom is called puckman. http://www.mame.dk/gameinfo/puckman/
Oops...
"Sometimes a woman is a kind of religion, she can save your soul & set you free from all your sins" - Bad Examples
Proper link for above... http://www.personal.utulsa.edu/~benjamin-chapman/c le/dmca_summary.htm
It's for a court to decide, I guess, but personlly I feel that good-faith would require human supervision of a these systems.
On the other hand, maybe they do, and these are just ones that slip through. It's gotta be mind-numbing reviewing these things all day.
Title 28, Section 1746 "Unsworn declarations under penalty of perjury".
The sentencing guidelines for the crime are covered in Title 18, section 1621, among other places. Penalty is a fine and/or imprisonment of up to 5 years.
--You will rephrase your request for me to go to hell. Goto statements are not acceptable programming constructs
When AT&T forwarded that threat to me, they included a legal contact at the company to speak to about any questions, etc (I removed this before I posted to the gentoo mirrors list, including just the stuff the ESA sent to AT&T). I called him up and got the general idea that companies like AT&T see hundreds of these per day, most of them invalid, and just forward them to their customers out of courtesy. They never seem to actually disconnect service because of an automated threat.
It seems the only people these days that take the DMCA seriously are organizations like the ESA.
Still, good point.
that the company alleging infringement must do so under penalty of perjory
According to the DOJ lawyers who recently responded in a Slashdot Interview, the "penalty of perjury" clause applies to their representation as being an agent of someone, and not to the validity of the claim or allegation.
---- ---- --- -- --- ------ Keep Cool But Do Not Freeze
The owner has the right to see the complaint. In fact, it is required by law.
"Once notice is given to the service provider, or in circumstances where the service provider discovers the infringing material itself, it is required to expeditiously remove the material from its network. The safe harbor provisions do not require the service provider to notify the individual responsible for the allegedly infringing material before it has been removed, but they do require notification after the material is removed."
--You will rephrase your request for me to go to hell. Goto statements are not acceptable programming constructs
Yes, but then you would be $cientology.
--You will rephrase your request for me to go to hell. Goto statements are not acceptable programming constructs
Quite frankly, this argument is (no offense) mostly hot air -- Obviously, you could (by your logic) run around claiming everyone is hiding something illegal in something else. It may be difficult to prove it isn't there (indeed, even if you knew "the encoding" you could argue that a different encoding might possibly have been used), but it would be impossible to prove that is there. The classic example: I could tell you that there is a race of little green men living on the far side of the moon, but they always remain hidden so we can never see them and if you try to find them, the will run away in their perfectly invisible spaceships. You can't tell me they don't exist, but how can I prove they do?
Q. What evidence do you have?
A. Ummm.... none. But theoretically.......
Good-bye
You can't sue for emotional damage in small claims, only for financial distress.
It seems the only people these days that take the DMCA seriously are organizations like the ESA.
While I'm glad you can shrug this off with a laugh, you've hit the nail on the head with that quote above. The thing is, the ESA aren't the only ones taking the DMCA seriously. The RIAA will soon be issuing over 1000 lawsuites against music sharers -- thanks in whole to information obtained via the DMCA. The problem is, what if they used the same techniques to find violators?
"The market alone cannot provide sufficient constraints on corporation's penchant to cause harm." -- Joel Bakan
Notice ID: 926003
9 Aug 2003 22:53:51 GMT
Dear Sir or Madam:
Universal City Studios Productions LLLP and its affiliated companies
(collectively, "Universal") are the exclusive owners of copyrights in
many motion pictures, including the motion pictures listed below.
It has come to our attention that University of North Carolina is the
service provider for the IP address listed below, from which
unauthorized copying and distribution (downloading, uploading, file
serving, file "swapping" or other similar activities) of Universal^?s
motion picture(s) listed below is taking place. We believe that the
Internet access of the user engaging in this infringement is provided by
University of North Carolina or a downstream service provider who
purchases this connectivity from University of North Carolina.
This unauthorized copying and distribution constitutes copyright
infringement under Section 106 of the U.S. Copyright Act . Depending
upon the type of service University of North Carolina is providing to
this IP address, it may have legal and/or equitable liability if it does
not expeditiously remove or disable access to the motion picture(s)
listed below, or if it fails to implement a policy that provides for
termination of subscribers who are repeat infringers (see, 17 U.S.C. ?512).
Despite the above, Universal believes that the entire Internet community
benefits when these matters are resolved cooperatively. We urge you to
take immediate action to stop this infringing activity and inform us of
the results of your actions. We appreciate your efforts toward this
common goal.
The undersigned has a good faith belief that use of the motion pictures
in the manner described herein is not authorized by Universal, its agent
or the law. The information contained in this notification is accurate.
Under penalty of perjury, the undersigned is authorized to act on
behalf of Universal with respect to this matter.
Please be advised that this letter is not and is not intended to be a
complete statement of the facts or law as they may pertain to this
matter or of Universal^?s positions, rights or remedies, legal or
equitable, all of which are specifically reserved.
Very truly yours,
Aaron Markham
Manager of Internet Anti-Piracy,
Worldwide Anti-Piracy Operations
VIVENDI UNIVERSAL ENTERTAINMENT.
100 Universal City Plaza
Universal City, CA 91608
tel. (818) 777-3111
fax (818) 866-6339
antipiracy@unistudios.com
Certified Black Helicopter Pilot *** Unwitting Dupe of One World Gov'ment
*pgp public key is available on the key server at ldap://keyserver.pgp.com
** For any correspondence regarding this case, please send your emails
to antipiracy1@unistudios.com and refer to Notice ID: 926003. If you
need immediate assistance or if you have general questions please email
antipiracy@unistudios.com.
Title: Junior
Infringement Source: FTP
Initial Infringement Timestamp: 5 Aug 2003 00:50:05 GMT
Recent Infringment Timestamp: 5 Aug 2003 00:50:05 GMT
Infringer Username: None
Infringing Filename: Junior-2.2-CD2.iso
Infringing Filesize: 608600064
Infringers IP Address: 152.2.210.81
Infringers DNS Name: metalab.unc.edu
Infringing URL:
ftp://152.2.210.81:21/pub/linux/distributio
Title: Junior
Infringement Source: FTP
Initial Infringement Timestamp: 5 Aug 2003 00:50:05 GMT
Recent Infringment Timestamp: 5 Aug 2003 00:50:05 GMT
Infringer Username: None
Infringing Filename: Junior-2.2-CD1.iso
Infringing Filesize: 732135424
Infringers IP Address: 152.2.210.81
Infringers DNS Name: metalab.unc.edu
Infringing URL:
ftp://152.2.210.81:21/pub/linux/distributio
Certified Black Helicopter Pilot *** Unwitting Dupe of One World Gov'ment
This also comes along with a lot of lawyers' e-mails because there is a good chance they're communicating with a client and the firm wants to cover its ass. The lawyers themselves don't have the option to remove this text, it's automatically appended by their e-mail system. But, since it's automatic, it also gets sent to people they don't represent.
My little brother works at a phramacy and whenever he sends me e-mails they come with similar boilerplate (the views in this e-mail are not necesarily those of the pharmacy, etc...). He never puts that text on, it gets appended after he hits "send."
Kinda like a
-=-=-=-=-=
I'd rather be flamed than ignored.
At worst, the sender could claim copyright over the message text, so arguably I wouldn't be able to post the exact message to my web site.
Actually they don't even have to claim copyright.
"Copyright protection subsists from the time the work is created in fixed form. The copyright in the work of authorship immediately becomes the property of the author who created the work. Only the author or those deriving their rights through the author can rightfully claim copyright."
http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html#wccc
Finkployd
What you need is something you can point to a judge and say, "see? Clearly any reasonable human being wouldn't think this was infringing."
That's the case in the example cited at the top of the article. It's not the case in what you're proposing.
You don't want to be able to point to the lawyers and say "see, they're technically wrong." You need to be able to point to them and say "see, they're completely nuts and out of control." Remember, the law is run by humans, and most humans have a relatively short attention span. Don't appear to be taunting the lawyers who send you threat letters. Make their actions obviously unreasonable.
Do this first, and get legal precedent established to the effect the lawyers having to take some due diligence to determine which things really are infringing, and on whose copyrights. Then, push the edge a little bit. I do think that if you keep pushing slowly you can eventually get to the point where automated lawyergrams in response to the files you describe would cause trouble for the lawyers. However, the time is not yet right for taunting honeypots.
Fortunately, the lawyers use some really stupid bots, so all we may need at this point is some sort of central clearing house to coordinate all these blatantly false DMCA actions. Either that, or get a Congressional representative to introduce a provision that allows for a small claims court action to recover, say, $500 for each false claim. (For the defamation suffered) But in that event, the claim will have to be such that no reasonable and awake person could have made it; your taunting filenames still wouldn't work.
The EFF could then publish guides on filing such claims. This results in a legal DDOS on firms with stupid bots.
The result? Fewer lawyerbots, or significantly smarter ones, or both.