Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Automated DMCA Notices Still Full of Lies

Posted by michael on from the dmca-veterans-for-truth dept.

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."

14 of 513 comments (clear)

  1. IT just goes to show you.... by xmorg · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:IT just goes to show you.... by ultranova · · Score: 4, Insightful

      That they are not as smart as you think. They probably dont even read or listen the content or compare the size.

      Why should they ? If these letters are sent automatically, it's much faster to skip any checks and just send the letter whenever there's even the slightest cause of suspicion. After all, the false positives won't hurt the them, just the poor bastard whose ISP gets such a letter and cuts the service.

      WE'RE WATCHING YOU - doesnt sound as scary, especially if they really dont know what they are seeing.

      You aren't scared that you might be punished (your ISP cuts the Internet access, police confiscates your computer, legal fees start piling up, you'll have to settle out of court or go banckrupt...) even if you're not guilty and there's no real evidence against you, just on some third-rate AIs word ? I would be, were I an American...

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

  2. Overseas by Albanach · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  3. we hereby state... by robochan · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "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.
    1. Re:we hereby state... by Patrick+Lewis · · Score: 4, Insightful

      They aren't the owner of the TCL code. Thus, they are commiting perjury.

      --
      "If I am such a genius, how come that I am drunk and lost in the desert with a bullet in my ass?" --Otto (Malcom ITM)
    2. Re:we hereby state... by kfg · · Score: 4, Insightful

      They ARE authorized to act on behalf of the owner.

      ". . .of the exclusive rights being infringed as set forth in this notification..."

      The people they represent are not the owners and have no such exclusive rights.

      KFG

    3. Re:we hereby state... by finkployd · · Score: 4, Insightful

      How do you figure? Was the RIAA authorized to act on behalf of Professor Usher when demanding that he remove usher.mp3? That is literally what they are claiming.

    4. Re:we hereby state... by schon · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The rights they claim are being infringed are owned by the people they represent.

      Yes, and they claim that the material in question belongs to those people.

      They are NOT claiming that the rights of the person they are contacting are being infringed.

      Because the person whom they are contacting is, in fact the owner of the rights, and they say that the person they are contacting is infringing those rights, then they are *by definition* lying.

      Just because they are incorrect

      Being "incorrect" has nothing to do with it.

      They saw something they thought belonged to someone else, and instead of investigating to see if it *really was* what they thought it was, they sent a takedown notice. In this notice, they stated under penalty of perjury *THAT THEY REPRESENTED THE OWNER* - which they didn't.

      They made two mistakes. First, they didn't check that the file was what they thought. Second, they made an assertion that they were representing the legitimate owner. (Note, they *DID NOT* say "we think these files belong to Fox" - if they had, they would be off the hook.)

      They lied, get over it.

  4. Where did the Season 1-7 come from? by erick99 · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Okay, I can *almost* understand the xfiles part, though why they don't check themselves before sending these letters out is beyond me. But the part about the season?:

    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/
  5. But they said "Own it now!" by Datagod · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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!"

  6. Under Penalty of Perjery ... by Physics+Dude · · Score: 5, Insightful
    "... we hereby state, pursuant to the Digit al Millennium Copyright Act, Title 17 United States Code Section 512, that the information in this notification is accurate and that we have a good faith belief that use of the material in the manner complained of is not authorized by the copyright owners, their respective agents, or the law.

    Also pursuant to the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, we hereby state, under penalty of perjury, that we are authorized to act on behalf of the owners of the exclusive rights being infringed 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.

  7. Re:Lies? by ralphart · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I usually operate on the "Never attribute to malice what can be explained by stupidity" principle, but here I'm thinking "Malice AND Stupidity"

  8. All this talk about the DMCA... by mrgreen4242 · · Score: 4, Insightful
    made me think of something... IANAL, so someone help me out here, but...

    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

  9. Re:OT by arkanes · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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".