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?"

Comments

This is stupid

[mjmalone]

This is one of the major problems with the DMCA. By negating the need for a court order to be allowed to send these orders they have opened the door to thousands of frivolous and invalid claims. Companies that have made invalid claims such as this one should be punished. At least they should be held liable for any damages if an ISP removes contents that they claim are infringing. Are these letters totally automated? Didn't somebody actually try to download the file and see if it was indeed an unauthorized copy of pacman?

Also,

>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.

What is this all about? They are trying to hide the fact that they are sending out these letters?

Re:This is stupid

[rifter]

Companies that have made invalid claims such as this one should be punished.

That's the real problem here. Part of the system of Checks and Balances here is that the company alleging infringement must do so under penalty of perjory, which implies a need for due diligence on their part. Since the Attorneys General in question seem to refuse to prosecute any of these entities for their numerous perjories under this law, they see no need for due diligence and employ the automated techniques which result in scenarios like this article. Until that changes there will be more of the same. I think we should move to recall any attorney general who refuses to prosecute one of these cases.

Good Faith?

[Anonymous Coward]

ESA has a good faith belief that the Internet site found at {IPAddress} continues to infringe the rights of one or more ESA members by offering for download one or more unauthorized copies

I think a good faith effort should involve a little more than lame pattern matching.

Seriously?

[tevenson]

So if I've got a file called "HalfLifemappack.zip" on my server they are going to assume that I have an pirated version HL on my webspace/ISP?

What are the factors that decide if a file is really in violation of the DMCA? I can see lots of lameness coming from this type of system.

Re:Seriously?

[dBLiSS]

A big problem with the DMCA is that there is no punishment for companies that don't even bother to check to see if the file even violates the DMCA. They just send out cease and desist letters in the hopes to scare people and if the company is wrong, no big deal to them. There is definetly something wrong with this this setup. A scary letter from a big company to Joe Blow makes you feel pretty scared, no one wants to spend thousands in legal fees even if they know their right.

This is insane

[Anonymous Coward]

The bot is causing a false accusation.
You can't blame it on the program. If your bot is unreliable .. DO NOT USE IT. You cant go around automating an accusation lawsuit process if it doesnt even work properly.

21st century witch hunt is what this is.
At least in the 1600's they got the witches right. Somewhat.

Computers automatically sending C&D letters?

[pclminion]

How can the human element be totally removed from this? There's a computer somewhere deciding whether or not it sees "infringing" material and sends out legal harrassment letters without any human intervention whatsoever? And people are not absolutely outraged by this?

What's next, automatic indictment by computer? "Sorry sir, the computer has ascertained that there is a 94% probability that you murdered your wife. The trial begins Wednesday."

Re:excellent!

[gallen1234]

Isn't there an old military saying that goes: "Never interrupt your opponent while he's making a mistake." I think this is the situation in which we find ourselves.

Seems like a lack of due diligence

[HangingChad]

On the part of the company sending that letter out. The DMCA may allow them to do that, but I wonder if it shields them from liability for doing so improperly? Seems like you could sue them for defamation, all the pieces are there. They've accused you of being a software pirate, someone else has seen the accusation and you had to spend time (and money) answering the complaint. I'll admit my knowledge on defamation suits is lacking, maybe someone with more legal background could comment. The real meat is punitive damages and I'm not sure what a court would see in this. Reputations are fragile things and to have yours slandered by someone not exercising a reasonable and appropriate level of care (ie looking at the file name before sending the notice) seems pretty serious. I'd probably at least have my lawyer call them. That gets their attention.

You can't prove a negative...

[TWX]

"...it would be pretty hard to prove it wasn't there."

and that's the problem with the DMCA and other laws like this. With a complex situation or structure you can't prove a negative. This is one of the fundamentals of science, in terms of hyoptheses becoming theories. If there is no way to test a hypothesis in such a way as to get a confirmed pass/fail test, then it's not a very good theory.

As for the 'encoding', read "Radio Free Ablemuth" by Philip K. Dick. It specifically addressed this kind of freakishness with coded messages. Or go see "A Beautiful Mind". Another example of why it's not feasible to go around accusing someone who can't prove a negative result. I feel that it should be criminal to accuse someone without having a verifiable positive first showing that they've actually done something wrong. Yeah, this puts the burden of proof on the accuser. Isn't that what the constitution says, with "Innocent until proven guilty"?

Not to give the media conglomerates any more work or anything...