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."

12 of 520 comments (clear)

  1. Duh by InfiniteWisdom · · Score: 5, Informative
  2. More **AA Stupidity by Raseri · · Score: 3, Informative

    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.
  3. Information by Kadmos · · Score: 5, Informative

    The Australian Copyright Council publishes information sheets dealing with copyright in Australia. You can see their website at http://copyright.org.au

    One such information sheet "Infringement: What can I do?" (http://www.copyright.org.au/PDF/InfoSheets/G052.p df) states:

    "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.

  4. It's called Coral Cache... by leonbrooks · · Score: 3, Informative

    ...and you insert .nyud.net:8090 at the end of the hostname.

    --
    Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
  5. Re:A few quotes from the article - by devilspgd · · Score: 4, Informative

    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...
  6. Re:A few quotes from the article - by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    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 !!!

  7. RIAA by pommiekiwifruit · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.

    1. Re:RIAA by SenseiLeNoir · · Score: 4, Informative

      For those outside the UK, who didnt understand a word of that:

      Camden Council in London have been looking at the explosion of "Fly Posting" for various Albums. These Posters are stuck on window boards or closed down shops and buildings, and other property, and is actually illegal, and considered vandalism.

      Although heavy fines and possible prison sentances exist for anyone caught flyposting, often its hard to briing on arrests for people, for it is hard to catch them as it is, and when anyone is caught, often are poor, or sometimes exploited immigrants.

      Camden Council had enough and decided to go after the person at the top of the chain, the Music Industry Executives selling the advertised albums. And are thinking of taking out a ASBO on the CEO of Sony Music, and BMG.

      --
      Have a nice day!
  8. Response to MPAA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.)

    1. Re:Response to MPAA by sg_oneill · · Score: 3, Informative

      What is that fucking bunch of crapola? In essence, you have to ***PROVE*** that you are innocent!!!!


      In effect yeah. Its civil , and not criminal, so its not a presumption of innocence, because civil stuff isnt really like that.

      --
      Excuse the Unicode crap in my posts. That's an apostrophe, and slashdot is busted.
  9. Re:A few quotes from the article - by ToLu+the+Happy+Furby · · Score: 3, Informative
    Under the DMCA, the notices are sent under the penalty of perjury.
    The only part of the letter that has to be declared under penalty of perjury is that the letter writer is the authorized representative of the copyright holder--which is true in this case. The assertion that the files in question violate that copyright does not have to be made under penalty of perjury.
  10. Re:What it proves by Coryoth · · Score: 3, Informative

    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.