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."
Damn that's some nice gzip compression, where can I get some of that?!
Your hair look like poop, Bob! - Wanker.
Oh, wait.
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?
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.
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.'
In other news, proof of life on Alpha Centauri was found on a Bazooka Joe bubble gum wrapper yesterday.
Yeah, makes just about as much sense as motion pictures in code.
It would be cool if it didn't suck.
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.
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.
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.
This is ridiculous. The MPAA is sending off threatening legal letters to anyone who might even look suspicious.
Thank you, DMCA!
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.
"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.
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/
...that no upcoming movie becomes named "stdio.h" or we're all screwed.
It would be cool if it didn't suck.
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!"
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?
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.
The reply letter included these gems:
I usually operate on the "Never attribute to malice what can be explained by stupidity" principle, but here I'm thinking "Malice AND Stupidity"
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
I'm actually pretty jealous they get these kinds of things. I should put up a page on my site with some old junk files, like resumees or code from old projects tar'd and gz'd and see if I can attract one of these fine letters. I feel it's important to be the first one on my block to receive and frame one of these masterpieces, before all you other weasels realize what fun this could be and set up your own web pages with likenamed and structured directories and files.
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?
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
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.
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".
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/
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.