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."
They'd probably mistake MD5 for a movie or song anyway.
One man's selflessness is another man's annoyance.
That they are not as smart as you think. They probably dont even read or listen the content or compare the size.
WE'RE WATCHING YOU - doesnt sound as scary, especially if they really dont know what they are seeing.
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?
More like mistakes.
Overseas, at least here in the UK, if you lose a court case you generally have to pay the other parties court costs. I can understand why you want people to be free to sue, but it seems that these days this is more a tool in favour of the big boys rather than a safety net for the little guy. Not that I expect the law to change, just making an observation.
"Also pursuant to the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, we hereby state, und
er penalty of perjury, that we are authorized to act on behalf of the owner
s of the exclusive rights being infringed as set forth in this notification..."
Is ANYONE that's gotten one of these ever going to call them on this bullshit and have them sent to jail for perjury?
...Rob
The American Dream isn't an SUV and a house in the suburbs; it's Don't Tread On Me.
The collective neural network of the entertainment industry seems to have its feedback and error inputs turned off for a very long time. Exactly how much intelligence does it take to realize randomly harrasing customers alienates them ?
The curious thing here is the dog that isn't barking. Where is the legal action against these companies for consistently, repeatedly and in the face of overwhelming evidence perpetrating the practice of harrasing legitimate users ?
Infringement Detail: Infringing Work: X-FILES, THE Season 1-7
There is nothing on their website that I could see that discusses an "xfile" as anything other than some organization software and certainly not any "seasons." These folks are very arrogant in their assumptions that the word "xfile" will always mean the tv show of the same name.
Cheers,
Erick
http://www.busyweather.com/
How come all the posters at the movie store say "Own it now on DVD?" If I own it, I can do what I want with it. I guess the posters should say "Own the licence to view the material in the privacy of your own home without making any sort of archival copy...on DVD!"
That is their PUBLIC ftp server that the file is hosted on. Its not hacking.
This is definitely a surprising case of the guilty until proven innocent world that the DMCA provides
Its is neither surprising nor does it have anything to do with "guilty until proven innocent". It is at best stupidity.
I can send a letter to Cowboyneal stating that I own a copyright on the color green and he should change the color of the slashdot logo. That doesn't mean cowboyneal is guilty of anything. Lawyers have always sent nastygrams around long before the DMCA.
The only thing new here is that they're sending out threatening letters without even bothering to have a human being take a quick glance at it. Well not new, it has been discussed here a long time ago.
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.
Could I take a VIDEO TAPE (no deCSS, hence no violation of the DCMA) of a movie I own, encode it into , then encrypt it with some sort of trivial method and post it to a website with filename NAME_OF_MOVIE.xxx. Then wait to get a C&D from the MPAA.
At that point could I demand how they are CERTAIN it is indeed a copy of their IP. If they actually decrypted the file and checked it wouldn't they be in violation of the DCMA? If they didn't wouldn't their claim be baseless, and hence perjurous (sp?) under the DCMA?
Just a thought I had during my last 5 minutes of work...
Rob
Isn't anyone worried that it may soon be illegal to have a file with a name like a copyrighted work? The ones in the 'article' may have been just coincidences, but if you start intentionally naming things after copyrighted works to get their bots' attention... well, who knows what depths of stupidity they could sink to? I think it's worth worrying about, and maybe even a legitimate legal question. Even if it is completely stupid.
I think it's time to create a bunch of bogus files and them everywhere...
I think you're a little confused. In the natural state, there's no such thing as IP or copyright. There's no protection whatsoever. The only way you can keep someone from using your work is not to give to them. This leads to people not being willing to distribute works at all, or to do so only under very limited circumstances. However, society has a lot to gain from the dissemination of art - contrary to the increasingly popular capitalist viewpoint, people are about more than simply subsisting while producing capital. Therefore, in the interest of serving the public interest (not the public _need_ - a healthy society and a healthy person is based on a lot more than food, air, and water), we have IP law with provides you with certain protections _in return_ for publishing your work where other people can see it. The important part of copyright is not the protection it grants, it's the reason for those protections. There's no such thing as "artists rights". If someone wants his works to be copyrighted for eternity, he can fuck the hell off. He doesn't need to be part of our society. He's getting a certain amount of consideration from society in return for his being willing to publish his works and allow others to build off of them. The gimme gimme grabby attitude of the big copyright holders is sickening and downright immoral. It's given us total crap like "subconcious infringment".
Do you really think that the XXAA is EVER going to run out of resources?
Columbia Pictures Industries, Inc.
Disney Enterprises, Inc.
Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios Inc.
Paramount Pictures Corporation
TriStar Pictures, Inc.
Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation
United Artists Pictures, Inc.
United Artists Corporation
Universal City Studios, LLLP
Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc.
With companies like that backing them, how the HELL will they run out of money? That's just a partial list of their clients I'm sure...
EVERYONE: While it would be fun to get your own autographed letter from the MPAA or RIAA and frame it in your cube, it's pointless. The "machine" that is the recording industry won't run out of postage or stupid ideas any time soon. We need a dramatic paradigm shift in societal thought patterns or legislation for any real change to occur.
"The object of war is not to die for your country, but to make the other bastard die for his." - Patton
I don't think the fact that they didn't bother to make sure they had CORRECTLY identified the files should excuse them from this. When you make a statement under penalty of perjury, it is your responsibility to have your facts straight. The MPAA has obviously failed to do so.
I think those who send these automated notices should be liable for legal fees and any other costs incurred by the recipient if they prove to be baseless or were sent because a human being did not check the content of the file in question.
Perhaps there should be a penalty for knowingly or carelessly making a false accusation?
You know, instead of just filing a counter-notice, victims like this should take a different approach. Copyright law has penalties for trying to usurp or interfere with another person's copyrights. When a blatantly false notice like this is filed demanding the material be taken down, the victim should treat it as an ordinary attempt to falsely claim ownership of their copyrighted material and pursue it as such. Put the RIAA and MPAA on the receiving end of a copyright-infringement suit for a change.
They're clearly just trawling the net for certain filenames. Perhaps thousands of us should create plain text files containing rude/amusing messages to these people, and give them names that their bots will pick up. They'd soon start looking stupid (well, *more* stupid) sending out thousands of automated letters to ISPs that were supposedly hosting "Return of the King" and "Spiderman 2" in twenty-byte files. They may try to poison the P2P file-sharers with duff files, so why not do the same to them to stop them using these bully-boy legal tactics against innocent people?
Cress, cress, lovely lovely cress