Slashdot Mirror
MPAA Sends Linux Australia Dubious Takedown Notice
L1TH10N writes "News.com has a story on how the MPAA sent a takedown notice to Linux Australia for the movies 'Twisted' and "Grind.' What was actually hosted with Linux Australia is Twisted (being a Python framework) and Valgrind (being a tool for finding memory management problems in programs). An interesting question that the article raises is whether automatic takedown notices based on blind keyword searches constitutes spam."
Twisted and Grind
apparently a few:
Twisted: http://imdb.com/find?tt=on;nm=on;mx=20;q=twisted
Grind: http://imdb.com/find?tt=on;nm=on;mx=20;q=grind
there are a couple of relatively recent ones in there too... Spooky...
"Go to CNN [for a] spell-checked, fact-checked summary" -- CmdrTaco
this also happened to scene.og recently
I wonder what the MPAA found? A tar.gz file, an rpm? If their agents are so idiotic to chase after something called python-twisted-1.3.0-1.1.fc2.dag.i386.rpm without checking if it is a film then they should be made to suffer by forcing the issue into court.
Well, the RPM extension is not just used for the packaging format, the extension is also used for Realplayer movies. As a result, I could understand why a search agent would pick it up as being a movie.
What I can't understand is why the search agent does not check the file size. If a file is 100k or a couple of meg, there's a fair bet that it's not a movie. Of course, human checking of some kind would also be a good idea before sending out legal threats.
Will these morons ever quit?
Probably not. What's worse is that nobody will ever really sue these organizations, not in America, not in Oz, not in Candyland, or anywhere else. People considering doing so would just end up feeling overwhelmed and intimidated by the size of the cartels, and just forget about it.
Either that, or any judge and/or jury would be bought by the **AA, ensuring the plaintiff's failure and subsequent economic ruin (lawyers, countersuit, et cetera).
The only thing we can really do to them is stop buying their shit, no matter how interesting a movie looks, or how much you like one of their bands. They will never stop this bullshit until it becomes financially impossible for them to continue.
Writhe your naked ass to the mindless groove.
As far as I know, the free trade agreement between the two countries pretty much makes sure MPAA & friends have similiar power in Australia than they have in US.
I'm not too sure about that, but in any case, the FTA has not been enacted yet. IIRC, some enabling legislation still needs to be passed, and there is still some squabbling over pharmaceutical patent law.
The Australian Copyright Council publishes information sheets dealing with copyright in Australia. You can see their website at http://copyright.org.au
p df) states:
One such information sheet "Infringement: What can I do?" (http://www.copyright.org.au/PDF/InfoSheets/G052.
"In some circumstances, letters claiming that someone has infringed copyright can result in problems under the law of defamation or under section 202 of the Copyright Act (which prohibits the making of groundless threats of legal proceedings)."
Interesting to note: It is apparently not copyright infringement if you copy something to review it (such as for a magazine (although specifics are not given)). The informaiton sheets are very informative (who would have guessed?).
It is also interesting to compare the webistes; copyright.org (US site), compared to copyright.org.au (AU copyright website). The later gives out factual and easy to understand information without any sort of obvious agenda.
...and you insert .nyud.net:8090 at the end of the hostname.
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
Under the DMCA, the notices are sent under the penalty of perjury.
Whether or not this would apply to notices sent out of the country or not is doubtful though.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day, but teach a man to phish...
If you are interested, there is a script that generates dummy *.mp3 and *.avi files with names that would get you some attention from those groups.
I'd rather you do it wrong, than for me to have to do it at all.
I saw an example of such an MPAA letter to the ISP and it actually has a paragraph stating the MPAA will cover any costs for the ISP when the subscriber takes action against the ISP for taking the action the MPAA requires.
So what you could try is sue the ISP for taking down your site, win that case, and the MPAA will have to pay.
The letter also states that the material is infringing their copyright "to the best of their knowledge", which qualifies their knowledge as being very little indeed...
This is just Brillant!!!
Just happened to find a copy of the copyright act on the Net (Australian Copyright Act 1966) may have been changed since but section 202 also Looks interesting
I quote
"
202 Groundless threats of legal proceedings
(1) Where a person, by means of circulars, advertisements or
otherwise, threatens a person with an action or proceeding in
respect of an infringement of copyright, then, whether the person
making the threats is or is not the owner of the copyright or an
exclusive licensee, a person aggrieved may bring an action against
the first-mentioned person and may obtain a declaration to the
effect that the threats are unjustifiable, and an injunction against
the continuance of the threats, and may recover such damages (if
any) as he or she has sustained, unless the first-mentioned person
satisfies the court that the acts in respect of which the action or
proceeding was threatened constituted, or, if done, would
constitute, an infringement of copyright.
(2) The mere notification of the existence of a copyright does not
constitute a threat of an action or proceeding within the meaning of
this section.
(3) Nothing in this section renders a barrister or solicitor of the High
Court, or of the Supreme Court of a State or Territory, liable to an
action under this section in respect of an act done by him or her in
his or her professional capacity on behalf of a client.
(4) The defendant in an action under this section may apply, by way of
counterclaim, for relief to which he or she would be entitled in a
separate action in respect of an infringement by the plaintiff of the
copyright to which the threats relate and, in any such case, the
provisions of this Act with respect to an action for infringement of
a copyright are, mutatis mutandis, applicable in relation to the
action.
(5) A reference in this section to an action in respect of an
infringement of copyright shall be read as including a reference to
an action in respect of the conversion or detention of an infringing
copy or of a device used or intended to be used for making
infringing copies. "
GO FOR IT GUYS !!!
Interesting, Section 102 of the US Copyright Law says that "motion pictures and other audiovisual works" may be copyrighted in the US. http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#102
Could this be another case of US copyright laws being enforced in another country?
Well, here in the UK members of the RIAA have been warned about ASBOs (anti-social behaviour orders - used on "problem" kids). If they continue to illegally flypost for their megacorps, the record company executives will be personally jailed. There should be more of that sort of thing.
That happened a while ago. :)
http://www.acme.com/software/decss/
I found out who is behind the MPAA...
SKYNET.
In a related report, Cyberdyne Systems is providing the MPAA it's email services.
In the US, ignoring an MPAA/RIAA demand can and likely will result in your upstream ISP shutting you off, as well as further legal expenses. Ignoring their claim based on absurd evidence (e.g. possessing Python's Twisted framework) will result in potentially significant damages that may exceed the cost of alternate options.
Subsequently, a more prudent response is to:
1. Send WRITTEN notice to the requesting party that you have received their request and as you are not a party to any unauthorized copyrighted materials, provisions under copyright law and/or DCMA (if in the US) and were inappropriately served notice/demand, their demand necessitates a response at their expense to which you have engaged upon receipt of their demand. Note the location where you received this notice and indicate that it is your place of business and where this notification was received (for jurisdictional purposes).
2. Fully document your compliance with the appropriate copyright/DCMA/etc. laws, including information on filenames, respective licensing, sources, etc.
3. Track the time realistically and honestly that it takes to prepare the response.
4. Send a bill for this time at a defensible market rate for your services (be realistic; seek several estimates from third party firms if you did this yourself; even better, hire another firm at fair market rates to do the above first steps for you) to the requesting party. If your ISP sent you the notice, bill them. If the MPAA or RIAA sent it, bill them.
5. Send your bill registered mail (return receipt).
6. If payment is not provided after thirty days, send a followup notice via registered mail indicating the matter will be taken to collections or small claims court within thirty days should payment not be received.
7. FOLLOW UP IN SMALL CLAIMS IN YOUR JURISDICTION!
This will require the notifying party (MPAA/RIAA/ISP) to retain counsel in your jurisdiction (normally a several thousand dollar retainer just to get them active) to respond to a minor case. Failure to represent themselves will likely result in a default judgment, which is even more of a concern.
Slashdot posts, complaints, angry emails, threats, angst, etc. won't stop these "fire-ready-aim" massmail notices. Extremely annoying litigation by innocent parties will. Suggestion for the day: Go visit your small claims court and obtain information on what the requirements are in your state (as they will vary on maximum damages, etc.)
the email harvesting poisioner? yeah, I got it from... here
I modified mine a bit and hide it as tiny links all over my site.
A spambot that hit's my website wil get thousands of email addresses. All of them un-useable.
It's a typo in the article, Section 202 is the correct one, check the AC post down the page a bit for the details.
"unwarranted harassment"
This must be some new meaning of "harassment", if it is possible for some cases to be warranted.
My understanding of the word is as follows:
1. A contacts B in some fashion that B finds unwelcome.
2. B informs A that his contact is unwelcome and asks that he cease contact.
3. A contacts B again.
(1) is not harassment, even if it happens a hundred times. (3) is harassment even if it happens only once. The difference is obviously (2).
That wasn't my reading of the law...
I was under the impression that the entire notice is presented under penalty of perjury which was the only reason the whole "guilty until proven innocent" was allowed.
However, I'm not in DMCA territory, so I might have misread something, I didn't pay as much attention as I do to local laws.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day, but teach a man to phish...
There may be things wrong with the way the movie people do business, but thin margins are not one of them. "somehow the expenses almost exactly match the costs" also happens in your neighborhood grocery store. A box of cornflakes marked $0.99 costs the store about $0.98 for the product, the shipping, heat and light in the shop, and labor to put it on the shelf. In a competitive market (which is so popular here on /.) margins are driven toward zero.
That's when you're offering something at a fixed price, films have variable returns. some films bomb, some films are roaring successes. According to movie studio accounting, everything finishes below the point of actually turning a profit.
Still not convinced there's something fishy going on? Try reading about the details of exactly how how movie studio accounting works. To call it dodgy is a vast understatement.
They have very fat margins, it's just that the margins become very thin (and usually slightly negative) for accounting purposes as soon as it comes time to share those profits with contracted parties who were offered a share.
Jedidiah.
Craft Beer Programming T-shirts
IANAL
It's not morally wrong nor frivolous to sue if someone disrupts your business with false accusations.
DMCA Sec. 1322. Injunctions
(b) DAMAGES FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF WRONGFULLY OBTAINED- A seller or distributor who suffers damage by reason of injunctive relief wrongfully obtained under this section has a cause of action against the applicant for such injunctive relief and may recover such relief as may be appropriate, including damages for lost profits, cost of materials, loss of good will, and punitive damages in instances where the injunctive relief was sought in bad faith, and, unless the court finds extenuating circumstances, reasonable attorney's fees.
~~~
Click here, you know you wanna!
Not sure if this qualifies as 'a response at their expense,' but I find this part particularly interesting: If it is determined that the copyright holder misrepresented its claim regarding the infringing material, the copyright holder then becomes liable to the OSP for any damages that resulted from the improper removal of the material.
Perhaps I should share this info on gnutella and title it 'Fight the Power' ;-)