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
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.
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...
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 !!!
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.
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.)