Slashdot Mirror
Automated DMCA Notices Still Full of Lies
dbaker writes "The MPAA filed a DMCA takedown notice against Superconnect, a software company. The letter is available here that demands the removal of roughly 120K of open-source TCL code that they believe to be a 'copyrighted motion pictures.' This is definitely a surprising case of the guilty until proven innocent world that the DMCA provides." And yet another: enrico_suave writes "The Entertainment Software Association falsely accuses the Interactive Fiction archive of pirating Doom 3. doom3.zip is a 114kb freeware DOS game from 1988. Reminiscent of when the RIAA sent C & D's to a Professor Usher who had an usher.mp3 file posted on his website."
This also reminds me of when the BSA tried to get a university to take down unlicensed copies of MS Office that were, in fact, copies of Open Office. Link here.
Seriously, you'd think these people would bother to at least give files a once over before sending out cease-and-desist letters.
Someone with mod points mod this down, and don't go to the link... it's a troll and not safe for work
Go away, or I will replace you with a very small shell script.
Like it or not, they can't file "charges" because they have to get a REAL prosecutor to agree with them.
That begs the question, have they EVER filed real charges, like "in-the-ass-prison" charges or just civil suits? Don't they take years to resolve anyway?
Ummm...Ths is total garbage. For one you can't prosecute on copyright disputes. It's a civil issue only.
This has been answered on slashdot before:
3 /0 7/24/1326224&tid=123&tid=95&tid=11
http://interviews.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=0
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.
No. Read it again. They are claiming they are acting on behalf of the copyright owner AS SET FORTH IN THIS NOTIFICATION.
Any casual look at the content of this 113kb file is enough to determine without a doubt that these are NOT infringing files. There should be a law against this type of harassment without so much as a glance at the facts.
Well, there's always Barratry. Who's going to step up for that one?
"We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
You are doing an ASCII transfer of what is supposedly a binary file. Various combinations of 0x0A and 0x0D in the binary are not guaranteed to survive that kind of treatment intact (in ASCII transfers, line breaks are represented as CR LF regardless of the representation used locally at either end of the transmission).
http://madonna.nick.music.stodge.org/ This is a PHP based tarpit of confusion designed to annoy the ??IA enough to stop spidering your server. You need to be able to run apache virtual hosts, but do not need any database (it all runs of config files). You can read all about this tarpit on my wiki. Patches and improvements are welcomed.
PirateBay.org is a BitTorrent tracker which means the files are not hosted on that site at all.
It exists!
o f+ Confusion
http://wiki.stodge.org/index.php?page=RIAA+Pit+
You can see an example here:
http://usher.nico.music.stodge.org/
*he Berne Convention means that US copyright does apply in other countries*
read again, the letter threatens with DMCA, and was sent as if sweden was just an another state in usa.
the site itself is just a bittorrent tracker / informer, and they're not hosting any infringing files themselfs.
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
-Ted
-=-=- Quantum physics - the dreams stuff are made of.
The "penalty of perjury" bit only applies to the belief that they represent the copyright holder. It's a common misconception (propagated by the DMCA creators) to think they need to be sure before sending threats.
I can send a DMCA to any ISP and claim that
a) I think a particular file contains copyrighted work written (shot/drawn) by my sister
b) under penalty of perjury I promise that I represent my sister
The only lie I can be made responsible for in the court is that I don't represent my sister (if I don't). I can always say I was mistaken about that photo/text and get away with it.
Future Wiki -- If you don't think about the future, you cannot have one.
No, they did not commit perjury.
There is an intentional bug in the DMCA. Otherwise known as an intentional feature. The DMCA was literally written by lawyers employed by the publishing industry. They intentionally drafted it such that they could fire off such notices with total impunity. It was a mistake to assume there was anything fair, balanced, or reasonable about the DMCA. It is purely a tool/weapon placed in the hands of copyright holders.
The perjury clause only applies to to the rights aledgedly infringed, not to the claim that there is genuine infringment or that there is any connection at all between the target of the notice and the asserted copyrights.
They do in fact represent the owners of the copyrights that they alledge are being infringed, thus no perjury.
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
This makes approximately zero sense. And it's "5, Insightful".
The claim they're making is about their authorization to represent those whose rights they say are being infringed (i.e. the owners of the copyright on the X-Files TV programs and movies), not those who posted the TCL code.
- I'd prefer not to.