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."
Why don't all the geeks in a collective act of corporate law disobediance just start using files with the names of copyrighted music/movies/literature/software and force the record and movie labels to waste tons of their financial resources sending out worthless legal letters?
I'm half tempted to go putting up nonsence zip files with movie names just for the hell of it, see if I get any emails.
At what point can wrongfully accused parties level countersuits for harassment (if at all)?
INAL to the extreme, so I may be way off base here, but it seems like wasting peoples' time and resources like this should make you open to such suits.
This is ridiculous. The MPAA is sending off threatening legal letters to anyone who might even look suspicious.
Thank you, DMCA!
If i record covers (I play bass, my friends play guitar and sing), and then post them on my website, am I breaking the law?
OK, I'm in the UK. What about now?
I think I know the answers - but it's a cheap way to get some insight. And a good way to start a discussion. And hopefully a fight. (It's Friday night here, but I'm indoors cos I feel like shit.)
Although there are disadvantages to a 'loser pays' system, it has the one big advantage of reducing frivolous lawsuits.
If you post it, they will read.
Nope. I got one... but I'm from Canada, so the DMCA doesn't pertain to me. I did try to scare my GF with the letter though, but it didn't work.
Find Nearby Indie Events
This almost makes me want to start a DMCA honeypot. I could put a whole bunch of small meaningless non infringing files with names chosen to attract what appears to be a spider run by the MPAA.
Then I could see just how many automated C&D letters I could generate!
That would be fun. If only I had the time to deal with deluge of C&D letters.
On behalf of the respective owners of the exclusive rights to the copyright ed material at issue in this notice, 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.
Anyone know how loosely interpretable the term "good faith belief" is? It seems like it would be trivial to prove (say, in court) that they obviously do NOT have any good faith belief, and that this is simply the result of some mindless spidering program. In a perfect world, you'd be able to force them into spending a little more money policing themselves, and every little bit counts, right?
We had one of these letters once delivered to Postmaster and Webmaster accounts for the company I work for. After a half hour of scurrying around trying to find the offending files on the system and failing, we double-checked the IP address that they said was the server with the offending files, and sure enough, they had made a typo between the time their script found the files, and they did a lookup on the ip address. The offending subnet, completely not owned by our company, was transposed a few digits.
So, we replied back to them, told them of their idiocy, and got a somewhat reasonable apology back - but nothing like what it SHOULD have been based on the language and severe tone of their warning.
This questions what really is automated and what has at least some human intervention. Of course, they should have realized that the entire X-Files series doesn't fit in a 113k file.
Suppose after they've spun tens of thousands of these things they might realize they're on the wrong track with automating such a lame process?
That would be an interesting protest. If a whole crapload of people were to setup file structures like that on ie, free hosting providers, isp webspace accounts, whatever, it would act as kind of a DDoS attack against their process, with the two pronged effect of getting the ISPs completely irritated at having to deal with hundreds or thousands of C&D's that are all groundless - which would hopefully lead to the ISPs either ignoring them, or lobbying for some kind of law that restricts their behaviour
Speak before you think
Whoever did this has too much free time: ASCII Star Wars
Physics makes the world go 'round.
The letter linked in the article asserts that the file in question is all or part of the "X Files" television show belonging to an organisation represented by the MPAA. Their assertion is NOT TRUE. The file in question is the source to a X Windows file manager that belongs to Mikko Kiviniemi.
The MPAA also states in their letter (in the excerpt shown in the grandparent to this post) that they are authorised to act on behalf of the owner of the exclusive rights to the material in question. The material in question really belongs to Mr. Kiviniemi, and I really doubt he authorised the MPAA on his behalf, so that assertion is also false.
I think that if they can't be charged with purjury then at the very least some or all of the recipients of these letters should pursue a court order to forbid the MPAA from sending legally threatening letters with blatantly flase information to innocent people. In any case, the MPAA should be banned from using a computerised system to scan file repositories and automatically issue such threats. The MPAA should be required to MANUALLY EXAMINE EVERY FILE they discover by automated means before making such bold assertions to minimise false accusations.
Reminds me of the ADV vs mirkx case. (ADV = big anime licenser in the US. mirkx = anime torrent site).
ADV's letter:
June 22, 2004
RE: http://mirkx.com
To Whom It May Concern:
This office represents A.D. Vision, Inc. (ADV) and its affiliated companies that own and/or are exclusively licensed to use the following protected work (the "Protected Work"):
Azumanga Daioh
DN Angel
Getter Robo Armageddon
Kaleido Star
Kimagure Orange Road
King of Bandit Jing
Pretear
Puni Puni Poemy
RahXephon
Saint Seiya
Through our Internet monitoring program, we recently discovered unauthorized use of our Protected Work in connection with your website (mirkx.com) (the "Site"). Specifically, the Protected Work is being offered for Internet download, copying and distribution through a Bit Torrent server, and potentially through a File Transfer Protocol server.
Our intellectual property rights are our most valuable assets. In order to promote a cooperative and beneficial relationship with fans, ADV prefers to send out written requests such as this first, rather than institute litigation or request that your ISP disable your Site. Notwithstanding the foregoing, unauthorized copying and distribution of ADV's protected works (including images) constitutes an infringement of one or more of ADV's rights under the copyright laws of the United States, Canada and other jurisdictions throughout the world. Applicable law provides for substantial penalties for such infringement, including injunctive relief, attorney's fees, and damages. ADV has instituted litigation in the past, and in every such litigation, ADV prevailed. If necessary, ADV will not hesitate to take such action again to insure that its rights are fully protected.
Therefore, without limiting any right, remedy or defense available to us, ADV MUST ASK THAT YOU IMMEDIATELY:
1) Delete and cease all further use of the Protected Work, and any other unauthorized ADV works, from the Site.
2) Remove and delete all copies of the Protected Work, and any other unauthorized ADV titles, from any other distribution channel owned, operated or otherwise controlled or accessible by you or those to whom you grant access including other web sites, FTP servers, web-based storage services, peer-to-peer systems and the like (each of the foregoing being a "Channel").
3) Remove and delete all references, pointers and hypertext links pertaining to infringing copies of the Protected Work from all such Channels.
If you are unsure of whether any other titles related with your Site are ADV Protected Works, or you would like to be more pro-active in your awareness of our licensed titles for future reference, please check with the official ADV site www.advfilms.com or our customer service department.
We also ask that you please advise us in writing within five (5) days from the date of this notice as to whether you will comply with our request so that we can determine whether any additional action will be required beyond this point. I trust this will receive your prompt attention, and if there is anything I can help you with in future, please let me know.
Sincerely,
Enforcement Team
Anti-Piracy Division
A.D. Vision, Inc.
And the reply:
Public reply from mirKx.com: (06.28.2004)
MirKx.com is not under North American's laws. It is unfortunate that this Site is available in North America, since it has only been made for Comoro Islands' inhabitants, where mirKx.com is acting from. Moreover, the referenced international copyright laws don't apply, since the Comoro Islands:
- didn't sign the International Berne Convention of 1886
- is not a state member of the WIPO.
MirKx.com is acting as an AUTOMATIC index of links, and the Protected Work you make reference to are NOT hosted on this server. If y
^_^
Then when a takedown notice comes along from one of these organizations, and the MP3 is played in a court case showing it isn't one of their songs, it becomes a bad faith takedown notice under 17 USC 512(f) for which the party demanding takedown is liable for damages due to any injury caused by the takedown as well as costs and attorney's fees. If it can be shown that all that would have been necessary to show it wasn't infringing was to examine the file and see (say by file size, or by playing it) then it is obvious bad faith and actionable.
The lessons of history teach us - if they teach us anything - that nobody learns the lessons that history teaches us.